Sometimes, when the proprietary nature of a system genuinely needs explaining to a non-specialist reader. It is worth less when the company's own controlled documents and training records already show what is company-specific.
Decide what the report would add
Before agreeing to a report, write the sentence it is meant to prove. If the sentence is that a named control approach is developed in-house and not standard in the industry, an independent specialist can help. If the sentence is that the technician is experienced and valuable, no report will convert that into specialized knowledge and the money is better spent assembling internal records. Ask what the author will review, whether they will see the actual system, and whether they will state the basis for each opinion. Price the report separately from legal fees and from government charges under the published schedule. A report that recites the employer's assertions back in more confident language adds cost and no evidence, and a reviewer reads it that way.
Hypothetical example: A packaging-automation company needs its proprietary line-programming specialist for a phased installation and must translate internal training certificates. The first review should separate unavoidable filing costs from technical-evidence preparation. Translation, redaction review, document retrieval, travel, and dependent applications can all affect the budget, but only after the company confirms the knowledge is genuinely internal and assignment-specific. A costly technical report is not a substitute for source records such as access logs and supervisor testimony. Build extension assumptions cautiously: L-1B time has a five-year total limit. Spending on a long rollout does not create extra classification time.