I don't get the last part of your comment. They can know what they are doing but the costs might be a problem. There are added costs to supporting accessibility

I don't get the last part of your comment. They can know what they are doing but the costs might be a problem. There are added costs to supporting accessibility, that's just a fact. No level of competency would make adding accessibility features not more expensive. I can bet you that whatever code you've ever written isn't fully accessible. That's impossible, as accessibility is a spectrum. The question is which features are a must and a bare minimum and which of them are not. If your job doesn't care about accessibility (which is bad, don't get me wrong) and doesn't pay you for adding say, colorblindness support or TTS, that has nothing to do with being competent. Accessibility is also in huge part related to cultural context. Sure, blind people and people in wheelchairs exist everywhere, but as an example where I'm from literacy is not universal. People can read for the most part but some have a very hard time reading, and TTS doesn't solve the issue in my experience. Does your website support that? Does it support a lot of visual elements/videos instead of text? Or a simplified version of the language? Does it make you incompetent, and does it make sense to add a completely different UI mode for them? That's what I mean with it being a spectrum.