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

How much does an MSP in recruitment typically cost?
How much money can you save with a managed service programme?
How to compare managed service provider cost models
Final checklist for your procurement cost-saving strategies
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.

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

View all insights

RESOURCE

Senior Leadership Hiring for the Nuclear Sector

The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s (ONR) expectations of senior nominated individuals have always been demanding, but the breadth of what the UK nuclear sector is making senior leadership hiring significantly harder to get right.

By Rullion on 21 April 2026

BLOG

How is MHHS impacting the energy workforce?

For several years, industry planning has included the Market-wide Half-Hourly Settlement (MHHS) as part of the larger UK energy market reform. The deadline for May 2027 remains in place, and with central systems achieving readiness in 2025, meters are now being integrated into the new settlement model. To continue operating under the current settlement arrangements, organisations are currently figuring out how to integrate their current platforms into the MHHS infrastructure. Jump to: MHHS reaches far beyond settlement Where programmes are feeling the strain How hiring conversations are evolving Broadening where capability comes from Preparing for MHHS workforce demand MHHS reaches far beyond settlement The majority of the definitions surrounding MHHS emphasise the transition from estimated usage to precise, half-hourly readings. That description merely reflects the result. The underlying shift is how this change in settlement is supported. Electricity consumption is measured every 30 minutes based on actual data, not on profiles or estimates. Systems designed for periodic updates now need to handle continuous streams of information, with far less tolerance for delay or discrepancies. Data flows between organisations and needs to stay consistent at every stage to prevent errors in settlement. This is where energy system integration becomes essential. As information no longer sits within a single platform or team, effective coordination is required across independently managed systems, each presenting unique constraints around data formats, settlement timings, and the validation processes prior to submission. The act of consumption itself evolves into a more dynamic experience. Metrics like average household electricity consumption or average UK home electricity consumption are no longer fixed reference points. Data collected every half hour reveals how usage varies throughout the day, directly influencing forecasting models and operative decisions. Where programmes are feeling the strain MHHS programme teams are scaling while still working through the intricacies that only emerge as systems begin interacting. Dependencies between internal platforms and central MHHS infrastructure are becoming clearer during testing, where data needs to be exchanged, validated, and accepted within defined time windows. Data handling stands out as a significant pressure point. Half-hourly settlement depends on precise, high-frequency data streams, which existing systems are not always designed to support. In many cases, such pressure leads to projects for reworking parts of the architecture instead of simply building upon existing infrastructure. Especially relevant where data infrastructure and quality have been identified as potential risks within the transition to MHHS. The settlement and billing processes still need to function smoothly, even as new strategics are introduced and tested alongside them. This means operational teams are working within both models at once, adding to the existing workload for processes that already depend on a small pool of specialists. How hiring conversations are evolving With the rise in delivery activity, demand for specific skillsets is becoming easier to pinpoint. There has been a noticeable uptick in hiring for programme leadership, data engineering, and settlement expertise. Roles focused on data governance and system integrations are also gaining traction as organisations move further into managing migrations and various phases. How those roles are defined is starting to influence how quickly they can be filled. Some roles heavily rely on hiring criteria based on prior experience in the energy market, which can unexpectedly limit the candidate pool. As a result, roles frequently stay open for extended periods or fill at a slower pace than programme timelines permit. This places additional pressure on existing teams and slows progress in areas where specialist expertise is already stretched Many of the required capabilities are not exclusive to the energy sector, although they are frequently presented that way during hiring processes. Some organisations are already adjusting how they approach these challenges. Rather than focusing only on direct sector experience, they are bringing in people who have delivered comparable programmes in other environments. Broadening where expertise comes from Financial services platforms handle high volumes of transactional data, making accuracy, reconciliation, and auditability essential. Telecoms programmes oversee infrastructure transformation throughout distributed networks, often coordinating system upgrades while minimising interruptions to live services. In large technology environments, integration teams routinely connect platforms with different data structures, handling mismatches in format, latency and validation rules. These examples align closely to the types of challenges encountered in MHHS delivery: Data engineers who have honed their skills with high-volume transactional systems can apply that expertise to half-hourly data flows. Data governance specialists bring experience in managing data quality and resolving validation exceptions where information does not meet required standards. Programme managers who are used to coordinating complex infrastructure or digital programmes are well-versed in managing dependencies across multiple teams and timelines. Integration specialists often move between sectors, applying their expertise to connect systems that were not originally intended to work together. Transitioning into the energy sector still requires onboarding and familiarity with the operating environment. However, they allow organisations to access capabilities that would otherwise fall outside conventional hiring standards without causing additional delivery delays. There is also increasing interest in structured development routes. Training programmes are being used to build skills in areas experiencing increased demand during phases like testing and migration and the transition into live systems. Preparing for MHHS workforce demand Workforce planning needs to adapt and evolve with the MHHS programme rather than sit alongside it. Each phase presents its own unique set of requirements. Mapping these changes in advance helps reduce reliance on reactive hiring, especially in areas where onboarding takes time. This also allows for different ways of structuring delivery. Some roles are better suited to permanent teams. Others can be delivered through specialist contractors or outcome-based models depending on the nature of the work. Align workforce planning to delivery phases MHHS delivery doesn’t place consistent pressure on the same roles throughout. Workforce demand shifts as programmes move forward, and planning needs to reflect that progression rather than treating hiring as a single, static requirement. In the early stages, work tends to centre around architecture and settlement design. Solution architects define how systems will connect and business analysts translate regulatory requirements into process and system changes. Settlement specialists are also closely involved here, reworking existing processes and identifying where adjustments are needed. As programmes move to system integration testing (SIT), demand shifts. The emphasis moves from design to validation, with data engineers and integration specialists becoming more central as data moves between systems and needs to hold up under settlement conditions. Bringing these systems together safely requires the expertise of both the test managers and environment leads to ensure seamless coordination. The later stages bring different pressures. The rise in migration activity drives a greater need for professionals skilled in data alignment and reconciliation to make sure records match across systems. Operational teams tasked with billing and settlement processes are gearing up to implement innovative strategies while maintaining existing processes. Some roles require continuity where knowledge of settlement processes needs to be retained. Others are more concentrated within specific phases. By structuring workforce delivery around these stages, organisations can bring in support where needed, without the need to expand teams across the entire programme. Delays tend to surface once systems interact at scale Successful integration hinges on coordination across teams working within defined settlement timelines. Delays in one area can quickly affect others. Migration then adds further pressure. Transferring meters and associated data into the new model demands both continuity and accuracy. When additional support is not in place early enough, existing teams absorb the extra workload, which can hinder progress and raise the chances of errors in settlement outputs. MHHS delivery depends on how teams are built MHHS sits within a wider energy market reform, with multiple organisations in the sector progressing through delivery at the same time and often drawing on the same types of experience. The overlap is already influencing the speed of team construction and the onset of progress slowdowns. Identifying these overlaps earlier allows organisations to bring in the right experience before timelines are affected. Once programs reach the integration or migration stages, there is less flexibility to resolve gaps without slowing delivery. This is why workforce delivery is starting to shift. Delivery is less about the technology itself and more about the teams having the right capacity and expertise in place to carry programmes through. Broadening the methods of talent assessment and exploring new avenues for sourcing talent, including bringing in transferable skills from adjacent sectors, can enhance MHHS delivery. The organisations that move with more certainty here tend to be the ones that have built teams to be able to handle the complexity and scale of the change required.

By Rullion on 15 April 2026

NEWS

Rullion joins Energy & Utility Skills to support workforce planning

The UK’s energy and utilities sectors are preparing for a level of infrastructure investment that will require more than 300,000 new workers over the next five years. That challenge is not just about attracting more people into the sector. It is also about how organisations understand the workforce they need, how they access it, and how workforce planning connects to delivery in practice. As investment accelerates, workforce pressure is building across multiple fronts at once. Skills shortages remain well documented, but the challenge extends beyond supply. It also includes visibility, coordination, and the ability to plan across increasingly complex delivery models. Across infrastructure programmes, delivery relies on a mix of permanent teams, contingent labour, specialist contractors, consultancies and supply chain partners, often operating across different stages of the same programme. Workforce planning needs to reflect that reality, rather than focusing solely on traditional headcount. Rullion has joined Energy & Utility Skills  as part of this wider industry focus, contributing a distinct perspective as the only workforce solutions provider in the membership, with insight into how workforce strategies can better reflect the realities of delivery. Why Rullion has joined Energy & Utility Skills Energy & Utility Skills plays a central role in supporting workforce development across the energy, water and waste sectors. Through industry collaboration, workforce research and skills strategy, it brings together employers, partners and policymakers to address long-term capability challenges across critical infrastructure. Rullion has joined as part of that wider effort, contributing practical insight from across the extended workforce. While much of the industry focus is on attracting new entrants and developing skills pipelines, a significant proportion of delivery continues to rely on contingent labour, specialist contractors and external delivery partners. Bringing greater visibility to that part of the workforce, and how it interacts with permanent teams, is an important part of building a more complete view of workforce capability. James Saoulli, CEO at Rullion shared: “We’re proud to join Energy & Utility Skills and to be part of a community focused on addressing one of the sector’s biggest challenges - building a skilled, resilient workforce for the future. As investment accelerates across the energy, water and waste sectors, we believe there is a real opportunity to take a more integrated approach to workforce planning, bringing together both permanent and extended workforce models. We look forward to working with Energy & Utility Skills and its members to support the delivery of the UK’s net zero ambitions.” Workforce planning needs a broader view Much of the workforce challenge sits in the gap between the workforce organisations plan for and the workforce they actually rely on to deliver projects. These programmes are delivered through a combination of permanent teams, contingent workers, specialist contractors and wider delivery partners. Not all of that workforce is equally visible in planning discussions, despite playing a critical role in delivery. This is already becoming more visible across the sector, as organisations respond to growing pressure around hiring, skills access and delivery timelines. While the industry has spent years focused on decarbonisation targets, energy security and affordability are now accelerating investment and infrastructure upgrades. We explored this further in our recent piece on UK utilities hiring challenges employers cannot ignore in 2026. A more complete view of workforce demand allows organisations to plan with greater accuracy, particularly where delivery models are layered, timelines are long, and competition for skills is increasing across the market. Bringing insight from delivery environments Rullion brings more than 45 years’ experience supporting organisations across energy and utilities, working alongside companies including EDF Energy, E.ON and Northumbrian Water. That perspective comes from the delivery environment itself. Across major infrastructure programmes, workforce challenges rarely sit neatly within one hiring channel. They tend to emerge across the interaction between permanent teams, contingent labour and external delivery partners. This is where greater workforce visibility becomes important. Understanding where capability sits, how it is being deployed, and how different workforce models support delivery gives organisations a stronger basis for workforce planning. It also helps widen the conversation around skills. Not just in terms of how many people are needed, but how workforce capability is built, accessed and coordinated over time. A more joined-up approach to workforce capability Energy & Utility Skills plays a central role in helping the sector respond to long-term skills and workforce pressures across energy, water and waste. This includes connecting skills strategy more closely to infrastructure delivery, labour market access and future resilience. Rullion’s contribution will focus on practical insight from delivery environments, particularly around the role of the extended workforce and how organisations can take a more integrated view of capability. As the sector works to meet investment, decarbonisation and resilience goals at the same time, collaboration across employers, partners and industry bodies will remain essential. The workforce challenge is already clear. The next step is building strategies that reflect how delivery happens in practice.

By Rullion on 08 April 2026