The Ministry of Defence has 22 companies working on feasibility studies for new UK energetics factories, each contract worth up to 300,000 pounds. Those studies are due back by the end of September 2026. The strongest proposals then move to Front End Engineering Design contracts worth up to 5 million pounds each, covering at least six new munitions and energetics plants. Construction is planned to start by the end of 2026. That sequencing is the thing to watch: feasibility closing, FEED awarding and a construction start all inside roughly one quarter, for a category of plant Britain has barely built in two decades.
Energetics is the unglamorous end of defence manufacturing. Explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics: the materials that make small arms rounds, artillery shells, mortars, countermeasures, bombs and missiles work. Britain largely stopped building the plants that make them, and the war in Ukraine made the consequences of that impossible to ignore.
The current programme traces back to the Strategic Defence Review published in June 2025, which committed 1.5 billion pounds to energetics and munitions, including an always-on production pipeline and at least six new factories. That figure sits inside roughly 6 billion pounds of munitions spending planned for this Parliament, and the Defence Investment Plan has since allocated 11.1 billion pounds to munitions and weapons more broadly.
What makes this a construction story rather than a defence policy story is the calendar. In November 2025 the government named at least 13 candidate sites. On 29 July 2026 the MoD confirmed contracts with 22 companies to study which of them can carry a plant. Those answers land this month.
What is actually being procured
Twenty-two studies, at least thirteen sites, six factories
Each of the 22 firms receives up to 300,000 pounds to develop detailed proposals covering both the manufacturing process and the site it should sit on. The cohort spans small and medium-sized businesses across England, Scotland and Wales alongside defence primes and large chemical industry partners, which tells you something useful about the shape of the work. This is not a pure construction procurement and it is not a pure defence one. It sits in the overlap.
The named candidate locations include Monmouthshire, Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, North Ayrshire, Shropshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Essex, Worcestershire, Hampshire, Pembrokeshire and Falkirk. Most are places with existing industrial heritage, which matters for planning, workforce and, in several cases, existing hazardous substances consents.
Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard framed the programme as “restoring Britain’s sovereign manufacturing capabilities after decades of decline”, with at least 1,000 high-skilled jobs attached. Commodore Caroline Dix, Deputy Director Lethality and Protect in the National Armaments Director Group, described the award as a step toward rebuilding a UK energetics industry that has thinned out considerably.
The timeline is the real story
Feasibility, FEED and a construction start in one quarter
Read the published sequence carefully. Companies return findings by the end of September 2026. The top proposals are then offered FEED contracts worth up to 5 million pounds each to develop engineering designs for at least six factories. Construction of the new plants is planned to start by the end of 2026.
Anyone who has taken a process plant from concept to site will recognise the compression. FEED on a hazardous manufacturing facility is not a fortnight’s work. Neither is the consenting package: explosives manufacturing carries site licensing, quantity-distance separation requirements, environmental permitting and safety cases that do not compress simply because a minister would like them to. A December construction start would most plausibly mean enabling works and early civils on a site with existing permissions, rather than a full plant build under way.
That is not a criticism of the programme so much as the single most useful thing for a contractor to understand about it. The first packages to hit the market will be groundworks, remediation, utilities, security infrastructure and access. The high-value process scopes follow later, once FEED is done.
Who can actually build these
Process plant capability, not general contracting
An energetics factory is closer to a specialist chemical plant than a warehouse. Blast-resistant structures, segregated buildings, controlled atmospheres, static and ignition management, process safety engineering, and commissioning under a regulatory regime with very little tolerance for iteration. The UK contractor base that has delivered this kind of facility at scale is small, and much of the institutional knowledge left with the plants that closed.
That capability gap is a version of a structural problem this industry knows well. As Professor Stuart Green argued on the show, tier one contractors largely stopped employing labour directly and pushed risk down the supply chain, which was rational for individual firms and quietly corrosive for long-term capacity. When government wants six specialist plants delivered quickly, that history is the constraint it runs into.
Labour availability will not help. In the BCIS poll of more than 350 UK practitioners, only 20 percent expected labour availability to improve, while 62 percent expected labour costs to rise. Data centres, energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing are already competing for the same commissioning engineers and high voltage electricians these plants will need.
The opportunity, though, is real and dated, which is unusual. For specialist process contractors, M and E firms with COMAH experience, and civils contractors near the named sites, this is a pipeline with published values and a published gate. That is more than most public programmes offer.
Pipelines like this move before the trade press catches them
UK programmes, deal flow and the constraints shaping delivery. One sharp briefing every week.
Join 3000+ Readers
| Stage | Timing | Value | Best suited to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility studies | Awarded July 2026, findings due end September 2026 | Up to 300,000 pounds per firm, 22 firms | Engineering consultancies, chemical process specialists, defence primes |
| Front End Engineering Design | Follows feasibility, awarded to strongest proposals | Up to 5 million pounds per contract | Process design houses with explosives or COMAH experience |
| Enabling works and civils | Targeted from end of 2026 | Not disclosed | Regional civils contractors near named sites |
| Process build and fit-out | After FEED completes | Not disclosed | Specialist M and E, process plant and commissioning contractors |
| Programme envelope | This Parliament | 1.5 billion pounds for energetics and munitions | Context for at least six factories |
Contracts with 22 companies, each worth up to 300,000 pounds, to run feasibility studies on possible sites for new energetic materials factories. The cohort includes small and medium-sized businesses across England, Scotland and Wales as well as defence primes and chemical industry partners. Findings are expected by the end of September 2026. These are studies, not construction contracts. (Source)
At least 13 potential sites were identified in November 2025. The named locations are Monmouthshire, Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, North Ayrshire, Shropshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Essex, Worcestershire, Hampshire, Pembrokeshire and Falkirk. The government has said at least 13 were identified, so the published list is not necessarily complete. Final selection depends on the feasibility studies now concluding. (Source)
The Strategic Defence Review published in June 2025 committed 1.5 billion pounds of additional investment for energetics and munitions, covering an always-on production pipeline and at least six new factories. That sits within around 6 billion pounds of munitions spending planned for this Parliament. Separately, the Defence Investment Plan allocated 11.1 billion pounds to munitions and weapons more widely, which is a broader envelope than the factory programme alone. (Source)
It is the published plan, and the government has repeated it. What is worth understanding is what a start would look like. Feasibility studies conclude at the end of September, FEED contracts follow, and full process design for an explosives facility takes considerably longer than a quarter. The most plausible reading is enabling works, remediation and early civils on sites with existing consents, with process scopes released as engineering design matures. (Source)
These are specialist process facilities, not standard industrial sheds. The scope typically involves blast-resistant and segregated structures, controlled atmospheres, ignition and static management, process safety engineering and commissioning under explosives site licensing. Firms with COMAH or upper-tier hazardous site experience, chemical process contractors and specialist M and E businesses are the natural fit. Regional civils contractors are better positioned for the enabling works packages. (Source)
The MoD has consistently cited at least 1,000 high-skilled manufacturing jobs from the factory programme. Wider figures circulating in coverage of the Strategic Defence Review, including numbers approaching 1,800, bundle in the separate long-range weapons commitment, so they are not directly comparable. The 1,000 figure refers to the factories themselves and is the one to use when assessing local workforce demand. (Source)
Related Articles
Tier One Contractors Don’t Build Anything – Stuart Green
The BCIS Construction Poll: What 350+ Professionals Actually Think Is Coming
Big Tech Promised $650 Billion in Data Centers. Most of It Isn’t Being Built
GOV.UK: Funding Boost for British Companies to Supercharge UK Munitions Production
Hansard: Factories of the Future, 19 November 2025
House of Commons Library: Defence Investment Plan Key Decisions
UK Defence Journal: UK Funds 22 Firms to Plan New Munitions Plants
Construction News: Construction Administrations Fall for Second Consecutive Month
