Seeing the full picture: Why service markups are the missing link in cost, quality, and workforce stability

From the January-February 2026 edition of Supply Chain Management Review.

January-February 2026

The January 2026 issue of Supply Chain Management Review explores how rapid advances in autonomous trucking, AI-driven optimization, and workforce development are redefining what it means to lead a modern supply…

Browse this issue archive.

Access your online digital edition.

Download a PDF file of the January-February 2026 issue.

In today’s increasingly service-driven supply chains, many organizations have robust strategies for analyzing material costs, logistics spend, and supplier performance. Yet one of the most impactful and misunderstood elements of service procurement remains largely invisible: the service markup.

In time-and-materials contracting, most leaders focus on the bill rate or the projected total cost of the project. Because these numbers appear straightforward, the factors beneath them are rarely questioned. Many assume markups are simply the supplier’s profit. Others believe they are too technical to dissect or too standardized to matter.

This mindset leaves organizations blind to critical dynamics affecting operational continuity, workforce quality, and total cost of ownership. In a market where skilled labor is scarce, turnover is rising, and service spend is increasing year over year, overlooking the markup is no longer sustainable.

This article explains what a service markup truly represents, why it has been historically overlooked, and how a transparent understanding of markup components can transform the way procurement leaders evaluate supplier value.

Why service markups are overlooked—and why they matter

In time-and-materials service contracts, purchasing managers tend to focus on two familiar figures: the bill rate and the total project cost. Because those numbers appear straightforward, the underlying elements that make up the bill rate—collectively known as the service markup—are often ignored. Many assume the markup is simply the supplier’s profit, or that the details behind it are too technical or irrelevant to sourcing decisions. Others believe that as long as total cost of ownership seems reasonable, the composition of the rate does not require scrutiny.

This common mindset leads buyers to overlook one of the most insightful indicators of supplier reliability, employee stability, and long-term service quality.

Why service markups are often ignored

Despite their significance, service markups routinely go unexamined. There are several common reasons.

1. Bill rates appear simple, but are not. Executives see a single rate—$90/hour—and assume it reflects skill level, market conditions, and supplier profit. In reality, that rate conceals multiple financial and workforce decisions.
2. Markups are confused with profit. Many purchasing managers believe markup equals margin. Most of the markup, however, funds statutory taxes, benefits, hiring costs, safety programs, and employee support, not profit.
3. The breakdown is rarely requested. Unlike material costs, where line-item visibility is expected, service cost transparency is often treated as optional or intrusive. Suppliers therefore default to a single blended hourly rate.
4. The workforce behind the rate is “invisible.” Executives know the deliverables they expect, but not the people performing the work. Markup details bring the workforce into view, highlighting the employee experience driving service quality.
5. Leaders prioritize speed over understanding. When projects move quickly, many teams simply compare bill rates, assume similarity equals fairness, and proceed. The hidden costs emerge later in turnover, overtime, and delays.

The irony is that the often-ignored markup contains some of the most useful information about supplier performance, stability, and long-term value.

What a service markup actually is

A service markup is the portion of the hourly bill rate that is not paid directly to the worker. It funds four primary categories:

1. Statutory costs. These include mandatory employer taxes such as Social Security and Medicare (FICA), Federal unemployment tax (FUTA), and state unemployment tax (SUTA). These typically total 10% to 12% of wages but vary based on wage caps, turnover, and state unemployment ratings.
2. Employee benefits. These include employer-funded items such as paid time off (holiday, vacation), medical and dental insurance, retirement contributions, training and certifications, benefits influence retention, skill level, and worker continuity.
3. Supplier overhead. These are operational costs required to employ and support workers, including hiring and background checks, safety programs and PPE, supervisory labor, scheduling and workforce management, equipment and administrative overhead, supplier profit, and the actual margin (often the smallest component of the markup).

Put simply:

Bill rate = base wage + markup

Markup = statutory + benefits + overhead + profit

This structure reflects not only the cost of labor, but also the investment a supplier makes  in its workforce.

Why markups matter, and why they should be evaluated early

Transparent markups give procurement leaders deep insight into a supplier’s ability to deliver consistent, high-quality work. They reveal the “health” of the workforce behind the service.

1. Wages signal turnover risk. If base wages are significantly below market:

• the best workers leave;
• new workers require ramp-up time;
• teams lean on overtime to maintain schedules; and
• productivity declines.

All of these increase the buyer’s cost.

2. Benefits predict workforce stability. Suppliers offering holidays, PTO, medical, and retirement have:

• lower turnover;
• greater workforce continuity;
• better safety performance; and
• higher overall service quality.

3. Statutory costs reveal operational health. For example:

• inflated FUTA may indicate late tax payments;
• high SUTA may signal poor safety performance or high turnover; and
• understated statutory percentages may mean compliance issues.

4. Overhead shows investment in safety and capability. Suppliers may be differentiated not by wages, but by:

• training programs;
• certification pathways;
• safety culture;
• supervisor-to-worker ratios; and
• hiring and background check rigor.

5. Profit levels reflect sustainability. A supplier with a razor-thin margin may under-invest in talent or support, or may not survive challenging market conditions.

The broader impact of markups on service quality

Because services are intangible and vary widely by provider, a simple price comparison rarely tells the full story. Expertise, responsiveness, training, and employee well-being all shape the value delivered. Understanding what sits behind a bill rate helps determine whether a supplier can consistently meet the organization’s expectations.

This is why analyzing markup components is so important. They show not only how costs are allocated, but also whether the supplier invests in its workforce or cuts corners in ways that may harm project outcomes.

Many buyers compare bill rates alone and choose the lowest number. But similar bill rates can mask very different underlying wage structures and overhead models.

Why bill rates alone are misleading: A realistic example

Consider five suppliers bidding on the same scope of work. Their bill rates for Craft 2 range from $98 to $105 per hour—a difference small enough to suggest equivalent value. At face value, Supplier 3 appears cheapest. But when we examine the wage-to-markup breakout, a different story emerges.

• Supplier 2 pays the lowest base wage
• Supplier 5 pays the highest
• Markup percentages vary from 62% to 72%

These differences reflect:

• varying statutory obligations;
• different benefits packages;
• different levels of overhead and investment; and
• different turnover risk profiles.

This information is essential for evaluating long-term value, not just immediate cost. Low wages or minimal benefits may yield short-term savings, but often lead to:

• high turnover;
• increased overtime;
• frequent retraining;
• project delays; and
• quality issues.

Ultimately, the buyer pays for these problems, even if the bill rate appears competitive.

Markup as a percentage:The real transparency

Markup percentages highlight how much of the bill rate is allocated to statutory obligations, benefits, and other costs. Statutory taxes typically average around 11% to 12% of wages nationally. Benefits vary but significantly influence retention. Other costs represent overhead, hiring, training, safety, and profit. Every percentage in the markup tells a story about a supplier’s workforce and operational health.

A transparent markup allows buyers to evaluate:

• Wage competitiveness and retention risk.
• Accuracy and appropriateness of statutory tax allocations.
• Benefit levels and employee participation rates.
• Reasonableness of “other” costs.
• Supplier financial discipline and stability.

A modern approach: Using markups to assess supplier value

Progressive supply chain organizations now use markup structures as a strategic sourcing tool. Here is how leading companies leverage these insights.

1. Benchmarking supplier investment in people. Organizations evaluate:

• market competitiveness of base wages;
• benefits provided;
• worker retention metrics; and
• participation rates (e.g., % enrolled in medical or 401(k)).

2. Identifying hidden financial red flags. Markup transparency reveals:

• cash flow strain;
• poor tax compliance;
• weak safety performance;
• underfunded benefits; and
• unsustainable pricing models.

3. Evaluating supplier operational maturity. Higher “other” markups often include:

• safety programs;
• quality management systems;
• supervisory support; and
• service infrastructure.

4. Strengthening total cost of ownership analysis.

Instead of using the bill rate alone, organizations incorporate:

• estimated turnover;
• ramp-up costs;
• overtime usage;
• safety incidents; and
• rework and delay costs.

5. Negotiating based on logic, not pressure.

When buyers understand each markup component, negotiations evolve from “lower your rate” to “help me understand your SUTA rate;” “walk me through your benefits structure;” and “explain your hiring and safety investments.”

How procurement should approach markup evaluation

You can implement markup transparency with a clear, repeatable process. Follow these steps.

Step 1: Always request a markup breakdown. Required minimum components:

• base wage;
• statutory percentage;
• benefits percentage;
• supplier insurance;
• overhead; and
• profit.

If a supplier will not provide transparency, that in and of itself is a signal.

Step 2: Compare base wages to market data. Evaluate whether wages are:

• below market (risk);
• at market (acceptable); and
• above market (potential stability advantage).

Step 3: Assess benefits relative to project duration.

Short-term roles may not require robust benefits. Long-term or recurring work absolutely does.

Step 4: Examine statutory rates for red flags. These include:

• FUTA greater than 2%;
• unusually high SUTA; and
• statutory totals below 10%.

Each indicates potential risk.

Step 5: Interpret “other” overhead carefully.  Costs here often fund:

• training;
• safety;
• certification; and
• supervisory coverage.

Rather than cutting these costs, buyers should understand their value.

Step 6: Evaluate profit for sustainability. Healthy, reasonable margins support:

• credible staffing;
• low turnover; and
• continued investment.

Unsustainably low profit is not beneficial to the buyer.

The strategic payoff: Better outcomes and lower total cost of ownership

Organizations that adopt markup transparency report significant benefits, including the following.

1. Lower turnover. Better wages and benefits attract stable, skilled workers.
2. Higher productivity. Continuity reduces learning curves and rework.
3. Better safety outcomes. Suppliers investing in training and oversight see fewer incidents.
4. Reduced overtime and schedule risk.
5. Fewer workforce gaps mean fewer last-minute labor shortages.
6. More trustworthy supplier relationships. Transparency builds alignment and reduces conflict during renegotiations.
7. True cost savings over time.

When buyers value workforce stability as much as bill rate, they achieve lower total cost of ownership—even when the lowest bill rate is not selected.

Conclusion: The case for elevating markup transparency

Service markups have long been overlooked in sourcing, dismissed as technical or irrelevant. Yet they contain powerful insights into supplier capability, financial stability, workforce quality, and long-term risk. In an era defined by labor shortages, supply disruption, and rising service complexity, ignoring markup structures is a liability.

The organizations that excel in service procurement are those that understand the human, financial, and operational factors hidden within a billable rate. They make decisions grounded in visibility, not assumptions, and they build supply chains that are more resilient, cost-effective, and strategically aligned.

Service markups are more than an accounting detail. They are a window into supplier value. And for supply chain leaders, they are an advantage waiting to be leveraged.

About the author

Sylvia Hernandez is a lead specialist in the Center of Excellence at Cheniere Energy. She is a doctoral candidate in supply chain management, has an MBA in supply chain management, and a bachelor’s degree in supply chain management from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University and is a Certified Professional in Supply Management from the Institute of Supply Management.

SC
MR