Clarify whether it would address a relevant evidence question before commissioning it. No universal replacement-training study is the L-1B test.
Focus spending on useful facts
Ask what existing records establish and what genuine gaps remain. Separate professional review and official charges from corporate training analysis. A lengthy or expensive estimate does not guarantee eligibility.
Identify the evidence needed and obtain a professional scope and current government fees. Keep ordinary development spending and immigration preparation costs separate; a costly pilot does not buy a qualifying role. Clarify whether a quoted engagement includes reviewing confidential material, addressing offsite work arrangements, or responding to later government questions. The larger cost is internal: the quality manager's time writing the system description, pulling training and audit records, and coordinating with the affiliate on its implementation letter. The predictable additional spending in an offsite case is legal and commercial review of the affiliate’s customer agreements, because those agreements have to say what the petition says. Expensive courses do not prove special knowledge of company products or advanced knowledge of internal processes; low-cost mentoring may be probative when resulting expertise is documented. Professional fees are often higher for L-1B because the specialized-knowledge evidence takes more work and requests for evidence are common.