The petitioner pays the USCIS fees under Form G-1055; travel and living costs across multiple sites are a business decision. Customers should not be charged for her as staffing, which would also undermine the offsite placement analysis.
Price the commissioning, not the technician
Hypothetical example: a Frontenac Islands technician's U.S. subsidiary proposes billing customers a daily rate for her presence to offset the transfer costs. The government charges are the Form I-129 fee and any associated fees under the USCIS fee schedule, plus premium processing if chosen; those are modest against a year of multi-state travel.
The more important cost question is how customers are billed. If commissioning is included in the equipment price or invoiced as a deliverable under the subsidiary's control, the arrangement looks like what it is: the manufacturer completing its own installation. If the subsidiary bills her out by the day under the customer's direction, it starts to look like labour for hire at an unaffiliated worksite, which the regulation prohibits.
Intercompany cost-sharing between the parent and subsidiary for her salary is ordinary and should be written down. Any clawback of transfer costs if she resigns is an employment-law matter and does not change eligibility. Hypothetical example: A Frontenac Islands industrial-coating-systems maker receives an urgent request from its U.S.
affiliate and assumes the affiliate will cover every expense. The first review should allocate filing charges, optional expedited handling, technical-document preparation, travel, and relocation costs in writing. The current fee schedule decides the government charges, while the intercompany agreement decides who pays the rest.
A rushed filing often costs more when confidential evidence must be translated, redacted, or explained twice.