I still feel like ATP swabs are an emperors new clothes thing. Especially as depending on the type some don't pick up AMP or ADP and most will pick up ATP from dead cells.
For me it comes back to what you're trying to do with these and why you think visual cleaning standards are not sufficient. (Not saying they are, just asking you to ask the question.)
So for example, you have a cleaning process and on some well designed equipment you get a borderline result on traditional micro swabbing or your allergen or species swabbing results are inconsistent. Or you are concerned about the reproducibility of your cleans perhaps due to operator competence. You might decide that you want a less subjective method to confirm clean or not.
BUT I would go in a completely different direction. So for example, why are you getting that borderline result? Is your machinery old, getting pitted and damaged? Would getting it repolished solve the issue so it's fixed for good? Would automating part of the clean improve it and make it more reproducible?
The ONLY time I've introduced rapid swabbing was for allergens and it was because of repeated incidents so that I had something which I felt was more "black and white" as evidence. But even then it was actually mitigating for poor design and (let's face it) a bit of a tick box. Just because I had a swab result recorded, doesn't mean that swab was even taken or taken from a sensible location.
I think everyone will know by now, I'm not a believer! 
But genuinely, if the suppliers are messing you about with supply, if the cost is vast... I cannot understand why more people aren't questioning "why am I doing this?"
Question: If the supply stopped tomorrow and you couldn't get any for 6 months, would you shut your factory? If not... Whatever you'd do instead, it's worth thinking if that should be plan A not plan B in my view.
