It is good to here the clerks in Virginia are standing firm. They could find themselves in the same position as the clerks in Michigan. If they do, you may want to direct them to the  Michigan cases. They may find it necessary to domesticate the federal case to Virginia. (If that is the right legalese)

I had never looked up the Virginia Freedom of Information Act until today. I found the same clause in the Virginia law that some companies have exploited in other states.

"F. A public body may make reasonable charges not to exceed its actual cost incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records. No public body shall impose any extraneous, intermediary or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body. Any duplicating fee charged by a public body shall not exceed the actual cost of duplication." Full Text

I'm not sure how the clerk's you spoke to are getting around this clause, or they may have only postponed it for a while. The answer your clerk's are giving the the companies is the same that was used in the Michigan and elsewhere. Genrerally the companies will seem to accept the answer only to return at some later date with a demand for reproduction at cost.

I'm not sure where you found a reference to RedVision's use of independent abstractors. Maybe I missed that on their website. I don't recall having seen an offer on their site. What the RedVision site  makes clear is that four counties in Virginia are "under development" or targets for acquistion.

I hope you will continue to keep Virginia counties apprised of these and other efforts  by outsiders to take control of county documents. The security of Virginians and the future of your company may ride in the balance.