Quality Control Plans in Federal Contract Delivery: What GAO Reports Document About Failure

Federal contracts rely on two quality instruments written by different parties. The contractor writes a quality control (QC) plan describing how it will inspect its own work. The Government writes, or in some cases accepts from the contractor, a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) describing how it will verify that the work conforms to the contract. The failures documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over five decades cluster where these two instruments meet: a QASP never written, a plan written and left unused, a plan without consequences for noncompliance, or an overseer without the training to apply it.

This article reviews GAO findings from 1971 through 2026 and the regulatory text that governs both instruments. GAO quotations are short and attributed to the report in which they appear. Several regulatory points remain unsettled as of November 13, 2026, and each is flagged where it appears.

Two Instruments, Two Authors

The Contractor QC Plan

The foundational construction clause, FAR 52.246-12, states that “The Contractor shall maintain an adequate inspection system” and perform the inspections needed to ensure that the work conforms to the contract (FAR Council 2026a). The same clause states that Government inspections and tests are for the sole benefit of the Government and do not relieve the contractor “of responsibility for providing adequate quality control measures” (FAR Council 2026a). Agencies convert that obligation into a written plan through their specifications. The Department of Veterans Affairs construction specification, for example, requires a description of the QC organization, a chart showing lines of authority, and an acknowledgment that QC staff will implement a three phase control system for all aspects of the work (VA 2021). Federal Highway Administration guidance for Federal Lands projects follows the same pattern, with process control testing and inspection procedures addressed in each phase of construction, beginning with a preparatory phase and ending with a production phase (FHWA n.d.). The FHWA guidance pairs its example plan with a set of good, fair, and poor plan elements, which gives contractors a stated standard against which the agency judges a submittal (FHWA n.d.).

The Government QASP

FAR subpart 46.4 addresses Government contract quality assurance. The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) model text for Part 46 states that quality assurance surveillance plans “should be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the statement of work” and should identify all work requiring surveillance and the method of surveillance (FAR Council 2026b). The Defense Department’s RFO class deviation adds that the requirement for a QASP must be addressed and documented in the contract file for each contract, with listed exceptions (DoD 2026). The General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General notes that FAR 37.604 allows the Government either to prepare the QASP or to require the contractor to submit a proposed one (GSA OIG 2023). A contractor therefore sometimes authors both instruments.

Contested Terrain: Which Part 46 Applies

Two versions of FAR Part 46 are in circulation. The codified FAR at FAC 2026-01, effective March 13, 2026, still presents subpart 46.4 in its established form (FAR Council 2026c). The RFO model deviation text, released August 15, 2025, rewrites the part in plain language and retains statutory requirements (Schwabe 2025; GSA n.d.). Agencies adopt it through class deviations: the Department of Energy issued one on September 16, 2025 (DOE 2025), and the Defense Department directed contracting officers to use the revised text effective February 1, 2026 (DoD 2026). The retrieved sources show no single governmentwide effective date for the RFO text, so a contractor needs to confirm which text its contracting agency applies (requires independent verification).

What GAO Found: Surveillance Absent or Insufficient

GAO’s 2005 review of 90 Department of Defense (DOD) service contracts stated that “Surveillance was insufficient on 26 of the contracts we reviewed” (GAO 2005). GAO attributed the shortfall partly to priorities, finding that surveillance “is not as important to contracting officials as awarding contracts” (GAO 2005). It recommended that DOD “require properly trained surveillance personnel be assigned to service contracts by the date of contract award” (GAO 2005). GAO also recommended practices to hold surveillance personnel accountable, after finding that almost all of them were not evaluated on their surveillance responsibilities (GAO 2005). GAO described its sample as illustrative of the challenges across DOD service contracts and not as a projection (GAO 2005).

A 2008 review of complex Department of Homeland Security service acquisitions noted that “not all of the contracts we reviewed had a quality assurance surveillance plan in place at contract award” (GAO 2008c). One program office told GAO that it had no plan for the first contract year and relied on award fee plan criteria instead (GAO 2008c).

Inspector General audits, which are not GAO products, reach a similar result. The DOD Inspector General found in 2005 that, of 23 service contracts reviewed, 3 contained the required QASPs, 14 had none, and 6 had inadequate plans (DoD OIG 2005). The GSA Inspector General found in 2023 that 5 of 26 sampled performance-based service contracts, or 19 percent, established no QASP (GSA OIG 2023).

What GAO Found: Plans Produced but Not Used

On the Healthcare.gov effort, GAO found in 2014 that “CMS did not use information available to provide oversight, such as quality assurance surveillance plans” (GAO 2014). Contracting and program officials, including the contracting officer’s representative (COR) and the contracting officer, were not sure whether the plan had been provided as the task orders required. Staff located a copy in June 2014, and officials said they were not aware that it had been used to review the quality of the contractor’s work (GAO 2014). CMS program officials said they relied on personal judgment and experience to determine quality (GAO 2014).

GAO’s 2024 review of Veterans Community Care contracts found that “VA has not updated its plans to reflect its current processes” (GAO 2024c). The QASPs still assigned duties to a program manager position that the Office of Integrated Veteran Care had eliminated (GAO 2024c). In August 2025 VA reported that other officials were accomplishing those responsibilities, and GAO stated that the report met the intent of its recommendation (GAO 2024c).

The Department of Education’s FAFSA Processing System illustrates a weaker form of the same failure. GAO reported in September 2025 that Federal Student Aid “was not validating contractor performance data” and that, although it “had established processes for monitoring contractor performance, it did not fully implement them” (GAO 2025a). Among seven recommendations, GAO called for a process “to ensure contracting staff receive proper certifications and training” (GAO 2025a).

What GAO Found: Plans Without Consequences

In December 2025 GAO reported on Navy oversight of fire safety compliance by ship maintenance contractors after the 2020 USS Bonhomme Richard fire. The QASPs for the six ships GAO reviewed “did not assess penalties for noncompliance with contractual safety standards,” and the Navy’s contracting tools overall “do not effectively address contractor compliance with fire safety standards during ship maintenance periods” (GAO 2025d). GAO recommended that the Navy update its QASP guidance “to include safety performance standards” (GAO 2025d).

GAO’s December 2024 report on the Navy’s cruiser modernization effort states that “Navy leadership discouraged the use of key quality control tools” (GAO 2024b). It describes poor-quality work on the USS Vicksburg sonar dome that required rework and added cost and delay, and it reports that Navy leadership reduced inspections by almost 50 percent in 2020 (requires independent verification) (GAO 2024b). GAO’s recommendation page states that weakened quality assurance tools “restricted the Navy’s ability to hold contractors accountable for poor quality work” (GAO 2024b). As retrieved, the page lists the recommendation as open and states that, as of June 2026, the Navy had not documented action on restrictions involving reduced retentions and reduced inspection checkpoints (GAO 2024b).

GAO found that the Navy’s corrective action request process “does not incorporate monetary penalties to address persistent issues,” and that continued use of a reduced progress payment retention rate adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic “reduces the effectiveness of this tool” (GAO 2025d). GAO also found that the Navy had not adjusted its limitation on ship repair contractor liability for major losses since 2003 (GAO 2025d). A QASP that records noncompliance has little effect unless the contract supplies remedies for it, and these findings document that gap.

The Global Household Goods Contract shows the end point of weak performance information. DOD terminated the contract in June 2025 “due to the contractor’s failure to perform services specified in the terms and conditions of the contract” (GAO 2025c). GAO reported that Transportation Command had only limited information on the contractor’s capacity and could not verify it (GAO 2025c).

What GAO Found: Deficiencies Found but Not Recorded

GAO’s 2008 review of the Army’s equipment maintenance contract in Kuwait stated that “The Army has not always followed key quality assurance and contract management principles” (GAO 2008b). Equipment was coded as ready for issuance when it had not passed quality assurance inspection, and inspectors allowed the contractor to fix some deficiencies without documenting them (GAO 2008b). GAO recommended that all deficiencies be documented in the Army’s quality assurance database (GAO 2008b).

What GAO Found: Contractor Quality Systems and Supplier Control

GAO examined 11 DOD weapon systems with known quality problems and reported “billions in cost overruns, years-long delays,” and decreased capability for the warfighter (GAO 2008a). It identified poor contractor practices in systems engineering, manufacturing, and supplier quality as contributors, and it stated that DOD oversight of prime contractor activities varied and decreased as its quality assurance workforce decreased (requires independent verification) (GAO 2008a).

In shipbuilding, GAO found in April 2022 that “Variation in quality requirements across Navy shipbuilding contracts” limited the Supervisors of Shipbuilding in providing consistent oversight of shipbuilding quality (GAO 2022). GAO recommended steps to ensure regular use of the Navy’s quality program standard in shipbuilding contracts (GAO 2022). In military construction, GAO reported that one Army-managed building was “delayed for over 3 years due to design errors” and, according to Army documentation, insufficient quality control oversight (GAO 2024a). Army construction agent officials said they were not using a lessons-learned system to share project observations (GAO 2024a).

What GAO Found: The People Who Perform Oversight

Oversight depends on personnel qualified to apply the plan. GAO’s 2012 review of operational contract support in Afghanistan found that “the required training does not fully prepare them to perform their contract oversight duties” (GAO 2012). The 2005 recommendation on trained surveillance personnel (GAO 2005) and the 2025 recommendation on certification and training at Education (GAO 2025a) address the same gap. In its February 2025 review of disaster contracting, GAO found that FEMA took oversight steps such as assessing contractor reports and conducting site inspections, and it recommended that FEMA remind oversight staff of “the importance of documenting contractor performance” and confirm that those performing oversight hold proper certification and authorization (GAO 2025b).

Status of GAO Recommendations

Agencies have acted on several of these recommendations. GAO marked six of the seven FEMA recommendations as closed and implemented, with the seventh, on use of a staffing model in workforce planning, open and partially addressed (GAO 2025b). GAO treated VA’s August 2025 determination as meeting the intent of its recommendation on program manager duties (GAO 2024c). The Navy concurred with all six recommendations in the Bonhomme Richard report (GAO 2025d) and with the quality assurance recommendation in the cruiser report, which remains open (GAO 2024b). DOD concurred with GAO’s recommendation on household goods oversight and estimated completion in November 2028 (GAO 2025c). Recommendation status changes as agencies report, so these entries describe the GAO pages as retrieved.

Contested Terrain: Contractor Self-Inspection and Government Inspection

The contractor-first model has a long record of disagreement. GAO reported in 1981 that the Army Corps of Engineers had required construction contractors to inspect their own work since 1966, and it stated that “GAO favors agency inspections over contractor inspections to help assure project quality” (GAO 1981). The same report warned that “Poor quality construction can cause projects to fail, resulting in catastrophic losses of life and property” (GAO 1981). That report addressed federal water projects. A 1971 GAO review of military construction took a different course and recommended that the Army and Navy construction agencies systematically monitor field offices’ enforcement of contractor quality control programs (GAO 1971). GAO’s 1996 best-practices review described successful commercial manufacturers that improved product quality while reducing oversight and inspection costs (GAO 1996).

Current regulation falls on the contractor-first side. FAR 52.246-12 places the inspection system on the contractor (FAR Council 2026a), and the RFO text states that the Government must rely on contractors’ existing quality assurance systems (requires independent verification) (FAR Council 2026b). The retrieved sources contain no recent GAO comparison of outcomes under the two approaches, so the question remains open. The 1981 findings also predate the current FAR text and concern one class of project.

Reading the Failure Pattern into a QC Plan

The mappings in Table 2 are this review’s own inferences from the cited findings. Each row pairs a documented failure with the plan element that addresses it.

Limits of the Evidence

The reports reviewed span 1971 to 2026 and cover selected programs. The cases illustrate failure modes and do not estimate how often those failures occur across all federal contracts. Most of the GAO findings address Government oversight and QASPs. The retrieved sources contain no GAO evaluation of the content quality of contractor QC plans across federal contracts, and the contractor-side evidence comes from older reviews and from construction and shipbuilding cases. The DOD and GSA Inspector General audits are not GAO products and are cited only as corroboration.

GAO quotations were taken from GAO web pages and PDFs retrieved through a web fetch tool. Flagged figures rest on a single retrieval. The status of the RFO Part 46 text varies by agency, GAO recommendation status changes as agencies report, and the FAR supply and service inspection clauses were not reviewed in detail.

Bibliography

1. DoD (Department of Defense), Defense Acquisition Regulations System. 2026. “Class Deviation: Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Part 46, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 246.” DARS Tracking Number 2026-O0035, effective February 1, 2026. https://login.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/DoD_RFO_Deviation_Part-46.pdf.
2. DoD OIG (Department of Defense Office of Inspector General). 2005. Contract Surveillance for Service Contracts. Report No. D-2006-010. October 28, 2005. https://media.defense.gov/2005/Oct/28/2001712606/-1/-1/1/06-010.pdf.
3. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2025. “PF 2025-63 Class Deviation to Adopt Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 46 - Quality Assurance.” September 16, 2025. https://www.energy.gov/node/4852882.
4. FAR Council. 2026a. “52.246-12 Inspection of Construction.” Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAC 2026-01, effective March 13, 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.246-12.
5. FAR Council. 2026b. “FAR Overhaul: Part 46, Quality Assurance.” Model deviation text. Accessed November 13, 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-46.
6. FAR Council. 2026c. “Subpart 46.4, Government Contract Quality Assurance.” Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAC 2026-01, effective March 13, 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-46.4.
7. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), Federal Lands Highway. n.d. “Example Quality Control Plan.” Accessed November 13, 2026. https://highways.dot.gov/media/44311.
8. GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 1971. Measures Needed to Ensure Compliance with Contract Specifications in Construction of Military Facilities. B-171496. April 16, 1971. https://gao.justia.com/department-of-defense/1971/4/measures-needed-to-ensure-compliance-with-contract-specifications-in-construction-of-military-facilities-b-171496.
9. GAO. 1981. Eliminating Contractor Inspections of Federal Water Projects Could Save Millions. GAO/CED-81-146. September 29, 1981. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA106838.pdf.
10. GAO. 1996. Best Practices: Commercial Quality Assurance Practices Offer Improvements. GAO/NSIAD-96-162. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-162/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-162.htm.
11. GAO. 2005. Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on Department of Defense Service Contracts. GAO-05-274. March 17, 2005. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-274.
12. GAO. 2008a. Best Practices: Increased Focus on Requirements and Oversight Needed to Improve DOD’s Acquisition Environment and Weapon System Quality. GAO-08-294. February 1, 2008. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-08-294.
13. GAO. 2008b. Defense Logistics: The Army Needs to Implement an Effective Management and Oversight Plan for the Equipment Maintenance Contract in Kuwait. GAO-08-316R. January 22, 2008. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-08-316R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-08-316R.htm.
14. GAO. 2008c. Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. GAO-08-263. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a274635.html.
15. GAO. 2012. Operational Contract Support: Management and Oversight Improvements Needed in Afghanistan. GAO-12-290. March 29, 2012. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-290.
16. GAO. 2014. Healthcare.gov: Ineffective Planning and Oversight Practices Underscore the Need for Improved Contract Management. GAO-14-694. July 30, 2014. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-694.pdf.
17. GAO. 2022. Navy Shipbuilding: Increasing Supervisors of Shipbuilding Responsibility Could Help Improve Program Outcomes. GAO-22-104655. April 2022. https://gao.gov/assets/730/720005.pdf.
18. GAO. 2024a. Military Construction: Better Information Sharing Would Improve DOD’s Oversight. GAO-24-106499. September 2024. https://gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106499.pdf.
19. GAO. 2024b. Navy Ship Modernization: Poor Cruiser Outcomes Demonstrate Need for Better Planning and Quality Oversight in Future Efforts. GAO-25-106749. December 17, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106749.
20. GAO. 2024c. Veterans Community Care Program: VA Needs to Strengthen Contract Oversight. GAO-24-106390. August 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-24-106390.
21. GAO. 2025a. Department of Education: Gaps in Federal Student Aid Contract Oversight and System Testing Need Immediate Attention. GAO-25-107396. September 3, 2025. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107396.pdf.
22. GAO. 2025b. Disaster Contracting: Opportunities Exist for FEMA to Improve Oversight. GAO-25-107136. February 6, 2025. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-25-107136.
23. GAO. 2025c. Military Moves: DOD Needs Better Information to Effectively Oversee Relocation Program Reforms. GAO-25-107771. September 11, 2025. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-25-107771.
24. GAO. 2025d. Navy Ship Maintenance: Fire Prevention Improvements Hinge on Stronger Contractor Oversight. GAO-26-107716. December 17, 2025. https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-107716/index.html.
25. GSA (U.S. General Services Administration). n.d. “RFO Deviation, Part 46.” Accessed November 13, 2026. https://origin-www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/GSA_RFO_Deviation_Part-46.pdf.
26. GSA OIG (GSA Office of Inspector General). 2023. [Audit report A210064: GSA’s administration of performance-based service contracts.] https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/A210064%20-%20Contract%20Administration%20Audit%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
27. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. 2025. “Updates to FAR: Contractor Qualifications, Protests, Quality Assurance, and Terminations.” https://www.schwabe.com/publication/updates-to-far-contractor-qualifications-protests-quality-assurance-and-terminations/.
28. VA (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs). 2021. “Section 01 45 00: Quality Control.” Construction specification, February 1, 2021. https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/VA/VAASC/VA%2001%2045%2000.pdf.