The petitioning entity files and pays the government fees on the current published schedule. Internal allocation between related companies is a corporate matter.
Filing fees, then the documentation effort
The published fee schedule governs the government charges and is revised periodically, so it should be consulted at the time rather than estimated from a previous filing. The larger real cost in a systems case is usually the work of documenting something that was built informally: writing up the architecture, gathering repository history into a coherent exhibit, and drafting a duty description for the receiving role. That effort has value beyond the petition, because it produces documentation the group did not have. If a request for evidence follows, responding is a further cost, and it is reduced considerably when the original filing already contained the build records. Groups planning more than one transfer should treat that documentation as an asset rather than a one-time expense.
Hypothetical example: An industrial-sensor maker wants to transfer the technician who understands its proprietary failure-analysis database. The budget should reserve funds for extracting access logs, training records, development files, and a clear receiving-project description. Those materials often cost more to organize than the published filing fee, yet they reduce the chance that a later request forces a hurried reconstruction. Decide who owns that work and when it will be completed before promising the employee a start date. A technical claim without source records is costly to defend.