The Procurement Guide to MSP Cost Models

BLOGBy Rullion on 29 October 2025

Why your MSP cost model matters

A Managed Service Programme (MSP) can transform how you manage your contingent workforce, but only if you get the commercials right. An accurate MSP cost model is the foundation of any successful MSP procurement; it helps you compare bids on a like-for-like basis, build a credible business case for your executive board, and avoid unexpected costs once the contract begins. 

Yet, many procurement teams still find cost modelling a sticking point. Data gaps, inconsistent supplier quotes, and unclear pricing structures can quickly derail your evaluation process.

As a leading MSP solution provider for critical infrastructure businesses, we’ve supported procurement teams from leading nuclear organisations to nationwide utilities providers with their MSP pricing models. Our deep domain experience means we can balance regulatory compliance, operational resilience, and cost efficiency, helping you get work done without compromising.


We’ve created this guide to break down how to create a clear and commercially sound MSP cost model that enables effective comparisons of potential suppliers so you can make decisions with confidence and ensure contingent workforce cost savings.

 

Things to consider with MSP Cost Models

  1. How much does an MSP in recruitment typically cost?
  2. How much money can you save with a managed service programme?
  3. How to compare managed service provider cost models
  4. Final checklist for your procurement cost-saving strategies
  5. Book a cost-model review session

 

How much does an MSP in recruitment typically cost?

The MSP pricing models will vary depending on scope, workforce size, sector, and delivery model. MSP providers will usually charge through one of three pricing models:

  • Management fee: a percentage of total spend under management (often 1–3% of contingent workforce spend)
  • Supplier-funded model: the MSP is funded via a small margin agreed with the agency, meaning no direct fee for the client
  • Hybrid pricing models: a blend of client fees and supplier contributions, particularly where niche or high-demand skills are involved

 

What’s an MSP margin?

In recruitment, an MSP margin is the percentage added by a Managed Service Provider (MSP) on top of a contractor’s pay rate. It covers the MSP’s management costs and profit for overseeing the contingent workforce.

For example:

If a contractor earns £400 per day and the MSP charges a 15% margin, the client pays £460 per day. That £60 difference is the MSP’s margin.

 

MSP delivery model

Delivery models will also directly influence cost and supplier relationships:

  • Master Vendor: the MSP supplies most workers directly, reducing costs but limiting supplier variety
  • Neutral Vendor: the MSP manages a wide network of agencies, ensuring breadth of choice but often at higher supplier margins
  • Hybrid Delivery: a tailored mix of direct fulfilment and agency supply, balancing cost efficiency with niche expertise

For a deeper dive into these models and why they matter, check out our full breakdown of MSP delivery models.

 

How much money can you save with a managed service programme?

Depending on how mature their current model is, UK companies that use a recruitment MSP typically save 10–20% in the first year. Most of the time, these savings come from:

  • Lower agency margins through managing suppliers in one place
  • Clear reporting making it easier to see and control costs
  • Lower risk of compliance and IR35, which means no expensive fines
  • Better operations because of standardised processes and quicker hiring

 

How to compare managed service provider cost models

With these ten steps, you’ll be able to compare MSP costs and evaluate bids on a like-for-like basis, giving you full visibility of potential contingent workforce cost savings.

 

1. Start with accurate baseline data

Before you think about future savings, you need to know exactly what you’re spending today. Without a reliable starting point, you can’t measure savings, compare MSP suppliers fairly, or spot inflated costs.

Gather data on:

  • Your current contingent workforce headcount
  • Pay rates and charge rates by role
  • Agency fees and mark-ups
  • Statutory costs (holiday pay, NI, pension, apprenticeship levy)
  • Screening, testing, and compliance costs
  • Technology/VMS fees
  • Any other pass-through costs

In our experience, the most common reason an MSP cost model fails in procurement is missing or incomplete baseline data. We regularly work with clients to fill these gaps before they go to market.

Ask your current MSP, Preferred Supplier List (PSL), or ad-hoc supply chain to provide this in writing. If you’re met with resistance, that’s already a red flag for your procurement cost-saving strategy.

 

2. Understand your contingent workforce profile

Your worker population profile affects almost every pricing variable in an MSP bid.

Key metrics to capture:

  • Size of contingent workforce and active assignments
  • Assignment duration and start dates
  • Direct fulfilment % vs. 2nd tier suppliers (The percentage of workers hired directly by the MSP versus through other agencies).
  • Worker source breakdown (MSP-sourced vs client-sourced/payrolled)
  • Location and line manager
  • Pay and statutory costs per role

This detail allows you to evaluate pricing models accurately. For example, if most of your workers are payrolled rather than sourced, an MSP supplier with a lower payroll rate may be more cost-effective than one with a slightly lower sourcing rate.

 

3. Build the business case

Once you have baseline data and workforce insights, you can start building your business case.

Your MSP cost model should:

  • Be simple enough to present to your executive board
  • Clearly show total projected savings for each bid
  • Allow scenario modelling, e.g., impact of different direct fulfilment rates, tenure discounts, or tech costs

Example:
Supplier A charges a lower direct fulfilment rate but commits to only 70% direct hires. Supplier B charges slightly more but commits to 90%. Over time, Supplier B could be more cost-effective due to reduced reliance on 2nd-tier suppliers with higher mark-ups, resulting in procurement cost savings.

See this in action within our E.ON MSP partnership and explore how a direct fulfilment model can reduce reliance on second-tier suppliers, improve accountability, and deliver faster, higher-quality hiring.

 

4. Keep the pricing spreadsheet simple

Complex spreadsheets lead to inconsistent evaluations. Procurement teams benefit most from a pricing model that captures the essentials without over-engineering.

Recommended inclusions:

  • Direct fulfilment mark-up
  • Payroll mark-up (for client-sourced workers)
  • Tenure-based discounts
  • 2nd tier supplier mark-up
  • Tech/Vendor Management System (VMS) costs (priced separately)

Separating VMS costs lets you compare technology spend accurately and assess the true value of different bids. It also keeps the option open to own your own platform, giving you more flexibility and making it easier to switch MSPs in the future.

 

5. Clarify Mark-Up vs Margin

It’s surprising how often terminology causes confusion in MSP tenders. A 7% mark-up is not the same as a 7% margin. Why? Margins cost you more. 

  • Mark-up: % added to the worker’s pay rate + statutory costs
  • Margin: % of the total charge rate

In simple terms, margins are calculated as a percentage of the total amount you pay (including fees and statutory costs) so you end up paying more than you would with the same percentage mark-up. Agree upfront on which you’re using and define exactly how it will be applied to avoid confusion and unexpected costs.

 

6. Common pitfalls in MSP cost modelling

Even the most experienced procurement teams can run into challenges when comparing MSP bids. A few small oversights at this stage can lead to big discrepancies later, either during supplier evaluation or once delivery begins. 

Here are the most common pitfalls to avoid:

  • Unclear or inconsistent pay rate assumptions
  • Hidden tech or implementation fees
  • Overstated migration savings
  • Delivery model impact overlooked
  • Overcomplicated pricing templates

 

7. Factor in contractual terms and migration costs

Migrating workers between MSP providers can appear to deliver big upfront savings but only if your contractual terms allow it.

These are important to check:

  • Worker transfer clauses and associated fees
  • Restrictions in existing worker contracts
  • Realistic migration percentages

Treat migration savings as a one-off line item in your MSP cost model rather than building them into your ongoing projections. This avoids creating an inflated view of savings that won’t recur year after year. Always run a separate “business as usual” cost comparison without migration savings so you can see the true long-term cost picture and make more informed procurement decisions.

 

8. Consider temp-to-perm and permanent hire pricing

Even if your MSP engagement focuses on contingent workers, include:

  • Temp-to-perm fees (broken down by tenure, e.g., 0–13 weeks, 13–26 weeks, 26+ weeks)
  • Ad-hoc permanent hire fees

These can become decision-making tiebreakers if two bids are otherwise close in contingent workforce cost savings.

 

9. Balance MSP pricing with capability

Price matters, but it should never be the only deciding factor. An MSP provider that charges slightly more but delivers consistently high service quality, exceptional compliance standards, and faster time-to-hire will almost always outperform a cheaper alternative in real commercial terms.

We typically see procurement teams achieve better long-term value when their procurement cost-saving strategy prioritises capability and reliability over the lowest upfront cost. A cheaper MSP who can’t deliver on speed, compliance, or quality will cost more in the long run through overtime, missed deadlines, and project delays.

To ensure you’re balancing both cost savings and ability, include a technical capability evaluation alongside your cost model to ensure the supplier has the following:

  • Talent pool depth and relevance
  • Implementation timelines
  • Technology fit and scalability
  • Compliance records

Our service quality consistently ranks among the best in the industry, supported by some of the highest Net Promoter Scores in the MSP market. This means our clients not only get an MSP supplier who can deliver on paper; they work with a consultative partner who will protect their brand and maintain the standards your business depends on.

Check out a case study where we partnered with Northumbrian Water Group (NWG) to deliver a compliant, high-performing managed service programme with 100% fulfilment and real-time cost visibility, all while meeting strict regulatory deadlines. 

 

10. Present your MSP cost model for decision-makers

Your output should be:

  • A clear side-by-side supplier cost comparison
  • Highlighting contractual commitments (direct fulfilment %, tech costs, temp-to-perm fees).
  • Linked to business case outcomes and not just line-by-line cost.

Many leadership boards respond best to visual data. Converting cost models into simple charts can make savings and differences between MSP suppliers instantly clear.

 

Final checklist for your procurement cost-saving strategies

Before you finalise and sign off your MSP cost model, take a step back and make sure you have addressed every key element. This is your last opportunity to confirm that your assumptions are sound and your comparisons are fair, so your board will have all the information they need to make a confident decision. 

  • Baseline data complete and verified
  • Workforce profile documented
  • Mark-up vs margin clarified
  • Tech costs separated
  • Migration savings separated from BAU costs
  • Temp-to-perm and permanent hire pricing included
  • Technical evaluation criteria set

A well-built MSP cost model isn’t just a procurement exercise, it’ll safeguard value over the life of your MSP contract. By combining accurate data, clear pricing comparisons, and a balanced view of capability alongside cost, you’ll be able to make confident, evidence-based decisions. Your organisation can secure an MSP partnership that delivers both contingent workforce cost savings and long-term quality.

 

Book a cost-model review session


Get a personalised review of your MSP cost model and benchmark it against industry best practice to uncover hidden savings and unlock your full potential. 

 

Read other MSP insights

Explore our full library of MSP resources for procurement teams navigating MSP tenders.

Share
Interested in how an MSP can improve your contingent workforce management?

Visit our MSP solution page or book a discovery call to see how we can build a programme that supports your organisation's needs.

More like this

Executive Search Trends 2026 | The Future of Senior Leadership Hiring

Executive Search Trends 2026 | The Future of Senior Leadership Hiring

The executive search landscape in 2026 is being reshaped by large-scale investment across critical UK infrastructure, the energy transition, engineering programmes, and regulated industries. Projects such as energy grid reinforcements, utilities modernisations, large transport programmes, and nuclear new builds like Sizewell C and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are swiftly moving from planning into execution. At the same time, scrutiny from regulators, the media, and the government has intensified. For boards operating in these environments, senior leadership appointments now carry operational, reputational, and political weight. Executive search is no longer about identifying experienced profiles. It is about identifying leaders who can translate large-scale investment into safe, consistent delivery across high-risk environments. For organisations operating within core critical infrastructure programmes, understanding the shifts in executive search trends is becoming essential to securing the right leadership. Jump to: What are the biggest shifts in executive recruitment? What are senior candidates looking for in 2026? AI in executive search and boardroom strategy Workforce transition is no longer an HR issue Future skills required for C-suite roles Where executive leadership is headed What are the biggest shifts in executive recruitment? Political risk now influences executive decision-making One of the most significant executive search industry trends is not internal to organisations. Senior candidates are increasingly evaluating political stability and funding certainty before stepping into major roles. Infrastructure projects often depend on multi-year government commitment. When policy shifts or investment timelines change, the public face of delivery is the executive team. “There’s a real concern among senior leaders about the political risk attached to major infrastructure roles. You can join a project where investment is promised, then nothing happens for years. That uncertainty now plays heavily into whether executives will step into these positions.” – Asif Salam, Practice Director | Executive Search For boards, this means executive candidate sourcing must confront the reputational exposure attached to major programmes and provide clarity on how political backing and funding decisions will be sustained over time. Delivery discipline is replacing vision as the defining leadership measure In highly regulated sectors, senior leaders are being judged on whether projects are delivered safely and competently. There is growing recognition that insufficient upfront planning, weak engineering definition and compressed timelines create long-term operational risk. Executives brought into complex programmes are inheriting decisions made years earlier. Future executive appointments in nuclear, utilities and energy will be evaluated on governance rigour and execution capability as much as strategic direction. In a recent interview, Asif reflected on the biggest challenge leaders are facing right now: “It’s simply getting projects built. Historically, the work was done properly upfront. Engineering, planning, supply chain readiness. Now projects often start before that foundation is in place, and executives are left managing the fallout.” Cyber resilience has become a core executive responsibility Another clear executive search trend is the elevation of cybersecurity to board level. Legacy critical infrastructure systems were not designed for the scale of digital threat now facing them. These platforms in water treatment, transport, and energy networks were built for operational efficiency, not hostile attack environments. Recent cyber incidents affecting major UK organisations, such as Jaguar Land Rover, where production was disrupted for weeks following an attack on core systems, have underlined how quickly digital breaches become operational and financial crises. The cost of a successful attack on critical infrastructure sites could be far greater. It’s no longer something that can just sit with IT anymore. Executives are now expected to understand business continuity exposure/vulnerabilities and supply chain interdependencies as part of their strategic risk management. What are senior candidates looking for in 2026? The motivations of senior candidates have become more nuanced. Compensation remains relevant. However, the decision to move into a new executive role is increasingly shaped by structural and personal considerations. Certainty of mandate and authority Senior leaders want clarity on what they are empowered to change. In regulated infrastructure environments, governance layers can dilute authority. Executives are more likely to step into roles where the decision-making framework is defined and where accountability aligns with influence. Ambiguity around political backing or board alignment is becoming a deal-breaker. Long-term impact over short-term optics Many executives are assessing roles based on tangible contribution. Infrastructure leaders are aware that their work can affect national resilience, decarbonisation targets, transport safety, and energy security. The opportunity to shape delivery in these areas carries weight. There is also a noticeable openness to joining smaller or specialist organisations where influence is more direct, provided that programme stability exists. Leadership environments that allow delegation The complexity of infrastructure projects makes micromanagement ineffective. Asif highlights the importance of empowering capable teams: “The best leaders are flexible across sectors. They hire strong people and empower them. What can go wrong is the temptation to micromanage. In these environments, you cannot afford single points of failure.” Senior candidates are increasingly evaluating whether they will be able to build capable leadership layers beneath them, rather than firefighting alone. AI in executive search and boardroom strategy AI is often discussed in relation to recruitment efficiency, but in infrastructure it carries broader implications. In executive search, AI tools are being used to analyse leadership trajectories, map sector crossover talent, and identify capability adjacencies across industries. At board level, however, AI is a structural issue. “AI isn’t an IT upgrade. It’s a strategic inflection point. It reshapes talent, risk, customer engagement, and even regulatory relationships. The strongest leaders are treating it as a business model shift.” Asif Salam. For regulated industries, AI introduces governance and ethics as well as workforce adaptation challenges. Leaders must understand how automation affects legacy systems and employee capability. Executives are not expected to be data scientists; they are, however, expected to understand strategic implications and how their actions may also impact stakeholder trust. Workforce transition is no longer an HR issue One of the most pressing challenges in critical infrastructure is demographic. Experienced engineers and operators are retiring. And with ongoing digital transformation across industries, digital and systems expertise is required at scale. The overlap between these capabilities is limited. Boards are therefore prioritising senior candidates who can oversee workforce transformation while maintaining safety and regulatory standards. This has direct implications for executive search trends in 2026. Talent mapping must extend beyond traditional pipelines. Future skills required for C-suite roles Across critical infrastructure programmes, the profile of successful C-suite talent is evolving. Technical credibility remains important. However, executive candidate sourcing is increasingly assessing: Judgement under regulatory scrutiny The ability to manage long investment cycles Clarity of communication with government and public stakeholders Comfort with digital transformation in legacy systems Self-awareness and adaptability Where executive leadership is headed Infrastructure organisations are expanding their executive structures to reflect new risk landscapes. In addition to traditional operational leadership roles, there is a bigger focus on: Chief Risk Officer and resilience roles Digital and information governance leadership Chief AI Officer and data oversight functions Culture and workforce transformation leadership What this means for organisations hiring executive talent Executive search trends in 2026 show that senior leadership appointments in regulated industries now sit at the centre of political exposure, operational delivery, digital risk, and workforce transition. Organisations competing for C-suite talent must demonstrate programme stability and clear governance, alongside a credible long-term vision for delivery. In parallel, executive search partners need deep sector understanding, access to leadership talent beyond traditional pipelines, and the ability to evaluate strategic judgement in complex environments. At this level, the cost of the wrong appointment is increasingly high.

By Asif Salam on 18 February 2026

Nuclear Workforce Planning in 2026

Nuclear Workforce Planning in 2026

The UK’s nuclear sector is moving into 2026 with clear momentum. By September 2025, UK civil nuclear employment had reached just under 100,000 roles, a record high. Growth is being driven by a wider mix of programmes than many people assume. It’s not only large-scale new builds; it’s also fleet operations, defuelling, decommissioning, supply chain activity, and emerging delivery models like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) beginning to shape future nuclear workforce planning. At the same time, government direction is becoming clearer. The UK’s long-term nuclear sector plan is increasingly defined through national roadmapping and policy signalling with an emphasis on sustained nuclear capability through to 2050. And that has implications for how workforce strategy is shaped in 2026. Delve into (and jump to): Why 2026 is a turning point for workforce planning in the nuclear sector One sector, very different workforce needs The skills shaping nuclear hiring in 2026 Where nuclear workforce planning breaks down What better nuclear workforce planning looks like in practice What major programmes are signalling in 2026 Why 2026 is a turning point for workforce planning in the nuclear sector The nuclear workforce challenge is often described as a shortage issue. In reality, the pressure points in 2026 are more specific and more operational. This year sits at the intersection of several competing demands: Major new build delivery continuing at scale (including Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C) Sustained demand across the existing nuclear fleet, including operations and nuclear life extension planning Long-term decommissioning and waste management programmes continuing nationally Rising expectations around safety, quality, assurance, and regulatory compliance Growing demand for digitally enabled engineering and delivery capability Increased attention on the workforce implications of SMRs, including the shift toward repeatability and standardised delivery models In 2026, the same skill sets are being pulled in multiple directions at once: across different sites, delivery stages, and risk environments. The result is a more competitive hiring landscape, leading to longer lead times for scarce capability and higher consequences when workforce planning is reactive. One sector, very different workforce needs “Nuclear recruitment” is often treated as one market. Where in actuality, it’s several markets layered together, and the differences matter. Workforce requirements shift dramatically depending on where a programme sits in the lifecycle: New build delivery Ongoing operations Life extension activity Defueling and decommissioning Emerging delivery models like SMRs Each stage behaves differently in terms of supply, scarcity, onboarding time, and compliance requirements. Design & Engineering Design and early engineering work tend to rely heavily on: Systems and discipline engineering (mechanical, electrical, C&I) Safety case and assurance capability Governance, documentation, and regulatory awareness This is also where “transferable skills” can genuinely work. But only when expectations are set properly. Nuclear environments reward structured thinking, documentation quality, and delivery discipline as much as technical capability. This is increasingly relevant as SMR conversations mature. While the delivery model differs from large-scale builds, the fundamentals remain consistent: nuclear-grade quality mixed with engineering rigour and configuration control. Construction & Commissioning Nuclear workforce growth becomes most visible and most pressured here. In 2026, what becomes most challenging has more to do with readiness than availability. Projects don’t simply need people who can do the work. They need people who can deliver at pace to nuclear standards, within nuclear governance. Early workforce planning here is what can prevent project bottlenecks later. Construction and commissioning typically demand: High-volume site delivery capability Strong quality culture (inspection, welding, fabrication, assurance) Commissioning expertise aligned to safety and compliance expectations Logistics, HSE leadership, and interface management Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Operations is where nuclear becomes long-term. This is also where nuclear life extension activity becomes a real workforce driver in its own right. Extending the operating life of existing stations relies on retained knowledge and stable capability, and not just recruitment volume. These roles depend on: Reliability and asset performance expertise Maintenance planning and outage delivery Compliance, governance, and leadership maturity Deep site knowledge and consistency Decommissioning & Waste Management Decommissioning is sometimes underweighted in workforce conversations, despite being one of the most sustained drivers of UK nuclear employment. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s (NDA) Draft Business Plan 2026–29 (published December 2025) reinforces decommissioning as a long-duration national programme, with ongoing workforce requirements across dismantling, waste handling, remediation, and programme leadership. This work is often less visible than new builds, but it remains essential to the credibility and delivery of the UK’s wider nuclear programme. Check out our interview with Deep Fission’s CEO, Liz Muller, on rethinking nuclear waste management. The skills shaping nuclear hiring in 2026 Demand in nuclear workforce planning isn’t only about headcount. It’s about the right capability, in the right place, at the right time, delivered to the right nuclear standards. As we move through 2026, pressure remains high in areas such as: Electrical engineering and C&I Systems integration and commissioning Quality, inspection, and assurance Safety case and regulatory-aligned delivery roles Project controls (planning, cost engineering, scheduling) Construction management and interface coordination Digital capability (safety, configuration control, performance) What’s notable in 2026 is that these skills are needed across multiple programme types at once. Across the lifecycle, one theme remains consistent: technical skill matters, but so does the ability to operate inside nuclear governance, with process discipline, documentation quality, and assurance expectations playing a key part of the job. Where nuclear workforce planning breaks down Even with all this nuclear sector growth, one of the biggest friction points is the gap between nuclear talent having the right technical background and being fully ready for nuclear delivery environments. That “missing middle” tends to show up in areas like: Project-readiness and site-readiness Compliance and assurance expectations Safety culture alignment Documentation standards and quality processes Geography adds another layer. Large programmes require both regional workforce development and national mobilisation. Without both, pressure builds quickly in local markets. This is why early workforce activity matters. Early shaping of pipelines leads to early team stabilisation and less reactive delivery, especially when multiple programmes are driving demand simultaneously. This is where an abundance mindset matters most. The constraint isn’t that talent doesn’t exist. It’s that readiness is uneven and pathways into nuclear delivery remain too narrow. When organisations invest early in conversion, onboarding and nuclear-grade standards, capacity expands quickly. When they don’t, scarcity feels permanent. “The challenge in nuclear isn’t a lack of people. It’s that capability is arriving at different levels of readiness, at different times, across different programmes. Workforce planning is about aligning that, not just filling roles.”— James Chamberlain, Nuclear, Sector Director, Rullion What better nuclear workforce planning looks like The most effective workforce strategies in 2026 share a few key traits: Plan by lifecycle phase, not just job titles Nuclear delivery depends on sequencing. Workforce planning needs to follow the demand curve across the lifecycle and not just the current open vacancy list. This forward planning can noticeably start to reduce risk: Clearer lead times Better mobilisation Fewer last-minute compromises on quality or readiness Build structured routes for scarce and transferable capability The sector can’t rely only on nuclear-experienced talent. But “transferable” doesn’t mean instant. Transitions work best when there is clear structure around: Expectations and standards Onboarding and compliance readiness Progression pathways once inside the sector Where skills are transferable but nuclear readiness takes time, Train to Deploy helps build job-ready nuclear talent by combining targeted training with your delivery standards, so people arrive ready to contribute from day one. Invest in early careers with conversion in mind The National Nuclear Strategic Plan for Skills includes commitments to scale early career routes, including the ambition to double apprentices entering the nuclear workforce by academic year 2025/26, with 2,500+ apprentices joining the nuclear workforce in 2024/25. The differentiator is what happens after entry: development pathways, retention, and long-term capability building. Treat workforce as delivery risk management In critical infrastructure, workforce constraints don’t only slow hiring. They affect commissioning timelines, quality performance, and programme confidence. This becomes even more important when the sector is balancing large-scale builds, fleet operations, life extensions, decommissioning delivery, and next-generation programme development such as SMRs. “You can’t separate workforce planning from mobilisation. If screening, onboarding, and readiness aren’t designed for scale, the workforce exists on paper but not on site.” — Jayne Lee, Head of Candidate Services, Rullion What major programmes are signalling in 2026 Sizewell C is a strong example of early workforce momentum, and it sits within a wider landscape that includes major delivery demand at Hinkley Point C and sustained activity across operational and decommissioning sites. In the last month, Sizewell C has reported: Around 2,000 workers onsite More than 100 apprentices appointed Around £3bn in contracts awarded to 400+ UK suppliers Continued regional supply chain mobilisation Early pipeline activity is already shaping workforce readiness, long before peak construction demand. This is the direction the wider market is moving in: earlier engagement, clearer forecasting, and more structured talent strategies across delivery phases. The nuclear hiring landscape in 2026 2026 will continue to be a strong year for the UK nuclear sector, but it will also be a demanding one. The organisations that deliver best will be those that approach nuclear workforce planning as a core part of programme execution: Anticipating scarcity early Building structured pipelines Protecting delivery confidence through quality and readiness Creating workforce models that can scale across multiple sites and phases

By Rullion on 04 February 2026