The “QT” on Quality
Assurance versus
Quality Control
Blurring the definition between quality assurance and quality control allows contractors
unnecessary wiggle room for compliance and thus complicates the government’s
evaluation and enforcement of these contractual duties.
BY JE F F R E Y A . R E NS H AW
As envisioned by the government-
wide performance-based contracting
(PBC) movement of the 1990s, quali-
ty assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) work hand-in-hand to ensure
the contractual delivery of an excel-
lent product to the government. Yet,
the two terms compose two different
entities and signify different contrac-
tual responsibilities.
Generally speaking, the contractor
is responsible for QC, while the gov-
ernment is responsible for QA. That
sounds clear enough, yet in practice
and historically speaking, the distinc-
About the Author
MAJOR JEFFREY A. RENSHAW is
an active duty judge advocate in the
U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate’s Corps.
He is a trial attorney assigned to the Air
Force Directorate of Contract Dispute
Resolution at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, and is a member of the
Louisiana State Bar. Send comments
on this article to cm@ncmahq.org.
22 ■ Contract Management / September 2005
tion between the two has sometimes
been blurred—to the point where
they have come to be used inter-
changeably.
It is important to understand the
difference between quality control
and quality assurance, and to ensure
that the two terms are not used syn-
onymously. Why is it important? The
government performs QA. Typical
government contract clauses place
QC responsibility upon contrac-
tors, requiring them to do certain
things to comply with the require-
ments. Thus, it is important to have
a clear understanding as to what
those requirements are. Blurring
the definition between the two con-
cepts allows contractors unnecessary
wiggle room in complying with their
responsibilities, and complicates the
government’s evaluation and enforce-
ment of these contractual duties.
This article has the modest goal of
providing a clear understanding of
quality control and quality assurance
terms, the difference between the
two, and a brief discussion of how the
terms have sometimes been and con-
tinue to be used interchangeably.
What Is Quality Control?
The U.S. Air Force Instruction (AFI)
63-501 defines quality control as
[T]hose actions that control the
production of output to fulfill
requirements for quality in raw or
produced material and services.
Quality control includes a feed-
back process that measures actual
performance, compares it to qual-
ity requirements, and acts on the
difference to minimize variation.
Quality control is the measure-
ment of a process or product by
an automated process, operator, or
other person, with comparison to
requirements and action to resolve
variation from a standard.1
A recent industry paper written by
Alison Kaelin, a corporate quality assur-
ance manager, defines quality control as
 [P]erforming the necessary observa-
tions, testing, and documentation
that verify the work performed
meets or exceeds the minimum
standards established by the project
specifications or contract. Quality
control involves the routine and
systematic inspections and tests that
are conducted to verify that each
phase of the work is in compliance
with the specification. Quality con-
trol is the contractor’s responsibility.2
What Is Quality Assurance?
The same U.S. Air Force Instruction
defines quality assurance as
A planned and systematic pattern
of actions necessary to provide
confidence that adequate techni-
cal requirements are established;
products conform to established
technical requirements; and satis-
factory performance is achieved.3
The industry paper cited earlier
defines quality assurance as
[T]he process to verify that the
quality of work performed is actu-
ally what was reported by quality
control. Quality assurance is an
audit function, used to verify that
quality control is being performed
and performed properly. It may
include review of QC documenta-
tion or conducting actual testing
on a spot or periodic basis. Quality
assurance is typically performed by
the owner or a third-party inspector
on the owner’s behalf.4
Practical Differences
Although the paper cited earlier deals
specifically with the painting industry,
it does an excellent job of laying out
the operative differences between QC
and QA.
In simple terms, the contractor is
fully responsible for every aspect
of the project from the equipment
and materials, and experience and
training of personnel, to the quality
of the final product. Quality con-
trol by the contractor is meant to
provide in-process verification that
the cleaning and painting is being
performed as designed to provide
a quality final product. Quality
assurance by the owner is meant
to verify that the quality control
implemented by the contractor
meets the requirements of the
specification, to further assure that
a quality final product will result.5
Kaelin’s paper also explains that
while QC is a full-time require-
ment, QA can be full or part-time,
or performed at specific stages of the
painting process. Her paper empha-
sizes that the presence of the owner
or a third-party QA evaluator/inspec-
tor does not relieve the contractor of
its QC responsibilities. Indeed, this
principle is embodied in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation and in Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals
decisions.6
September 2005 / Contract Management ■ 23
Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E
Term Interchange and Confusion
As noted by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense’s “Share A-76”
Web site, “QA and QC are frequently
confused and mistakenly used inter-
changeably. On one hand, they refer
to distinctly different actions per-
formed by different organizations.”7
The site explains that QA involves
actions taken by government quality
assurance evaluators (QAEs) to deter-
mine if goods or services meet the
contract requirements.
On the other hand, QC refers to a
contractor’s actions taken to control
production of goods or services to
ensure compliance with the contract
requirements. Other organizations
have also noted this confusion. For
example, the Husky Injection Molding
Systems, Ltd., Web site states
We often hear the terms quality
assurance and quality control used
interchangeably. However, I like to
think of quality control as a reactive
approach to quality: Doing inspec-
tions or taking part measurements,
finding an out of spec part and fix-
ing the process. Whereas quality
assurance is proactive: Using the
information we gather in quality
control with tools such as pare to
and control charts to monitor pro-
cesses and defect changes before
the parts are out of spec.8
The American Society for Quality
(ASQ) has noted the sometimes-inter-
changeable use of quality control and
quality assurance as well, opining
that both terms “have many inter-
pretations because of the multiple
definitions for the words ‘assurance’
and ‘control.’”9 The Tennessee Center
for Performance Excellence (TNCPE)
likewise notes the multiple definitions
for “assurance” and “control,” stating,
“Often, however, ‘quality assurance’
and ‘quality control’ are used inter-
changeably, referring to the actions
performed to ensure the quality of a
product, service, or process.”10
A review of several Boards of
Contract Appeals decisions also sheds
some insight as to the “loosey-goosey”
24 ■ Contract Management / September 2005
V S . Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L
usage of the two terms. One board
decision involved the U.S. Army’s
Missile Command and described
its “project assurance directorate,”
which was responsible for quality con-
trol.11 Another one, The Wayne Kerr
Corporation case, involved a contract
that called for the contractor to design
and develop a capacity measuring
system. The contractor claimed that
the QC contract specifications were
ambiguous, and that the government
was requiring additional work.
“Quality control” and “quality
assurance” appear to be used inter-
changeably throughout the opinion:
It is apparent that appellant was
unfamiliar with the details and
procedures required by NASA con-
tracts, particularly the requirement
of NPC 200-4, a NASA quality con-
trol procedure, compliance with
which was required by contract
terms. The appeal file indicates
that respondent delegated certain
contract administration author-
ity and quality control inspection
responsibility to the Defense
Contract Administration Service.
Several of the technical difficulties
appellant and its subcontractors
experienced in performing the
contract work centered in compli-
ance with the quality assurance
procedures required by the con-
tract…respondent wrote appellant a
letter…commenting on appellant’s
December monthly progress report
and stated in part: “You are advised
that your inspection plan was not
approved as written, however, we
are informed that DCAS Quality
Assurance Representatives have
contacted your subcontractor for
necessary corrections and guide-
lines.”12 (Emphasis added)
The case of Big 4 Mechanical
Contractors, Inc.,13 adds to the blur-
ring of the QC/QA terms—it treats
the distinct concepts as synonymous.
The Armed Services Board of
Contract Appeals decision describes
the contractor’s claim as one for
“additional costs alleged to have
been incurred in implementing a
quality assurance program during
the performance of a contract for
the repair and overhaul of aerospace
ground equipment assigned to Tinker
Air Force Base, Oklahoma.” It then
explains that the contract included
a number of provisions pertaining
to inspection of the work and “qual-
ity assurance” and then includes the
contract language which is a clause
titled “Quality Control and Inspection
and Acceptance.” Any meaningful
distinction between the two terms
was blurred in the following opinion
language:
An initial recommendation was
made to disapprove the award
based on appellant’s lack of
inspection and quality assurance
personnel and procedures. However,
after appellant had agreed to pro-
vide an acceptable quality control
and inspection manual and to
provide acceptable inspection and
quality control services as required
by MIL-2-45208A, the appellant was
awarded the contract.14
However, later in the opinion the
board lists quality control and quality
assurance as separate components.
The board explained, “The U.S. Air
Force repeatedly indicated its inten-
tion to implement fully a quality
control, inspection, and quality assur-
ance procedure that would comply
with the contract….”15
Yet, the board reverts back to
characterizing the concepts as inter-
changeable, in its language, “At
various times during performance of
the contract, government representa-
tives had requested that appellant
furnish listings of its quality control
and/or quality assurance personnel.”
To further illustrate, although the
employees on an August 24, 1972, list
given by the contractor to the U.S. Air
Force (USAF) were all QC personnel,
the board interchangeably uses the
terms as follows:
On 22 January 1973, Mr. Charles E.
Towe furnished a list of appellant’s
Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E
quality assurance personnel which
showed changes from the 24 August
1972 listing as follows: Robert Van
Atta was substituted as quality control
manager, Ken Reeves was listed under
Category A Shop, and Robert Billins
and Delain Baxter had been added to
quality control for the service line.16
Conflicting usage of the two terms
is peppered throughout the decision.
In sum, it appears that in the 1970s
when the decision was rendered, quality
control was considered to be a subset
of quality assurance, whereas in pres-
ent day, both are separate entities.
Another case arising from Tinker
Air Force Base, Bailey et al v. United
States, involved an action by 30 fed-
eral employees, who were employed
as “quality control inspectors” by the
U.S. Air Force in the mid 1970s.17
At that time, the air force was still
responsible for contractual QC, or
was characterizing quality control as
quality assurance. In either event, the
point is that the two terms were being
used virtually synonymously.
Emergence of 1990s
Performance-Based Contracting
The Office of Federal Procurement
Policy’s letter of April 9, 1991,
established a federal policy that all
government agencies would use per-
formance-based contracting (PBC)
methods to “the maximum extent
practicable henceforth.”18 As part of
that policy, agencies were directed to
assign contractors full responsibility
for quality performance, whereas the
government would develop “perfor-
mance standards and surveillance
plans to facilitate the assessment of
contractor performance.”19 Further,
the policy letter encouraged agencies
to avoid “cumbersome and intrusive
process-oriented inspection and over-
sight programs to assess contractor
performance.”20
The interaction between contractor-
provided QC and government-pro-
vided QA is critical to ensure that
a quality product is delivered to the
government. As explained on the
government’s Know Net Web site:
26 ■ Contract Management / September 2005
V S . Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L
The PBC team is interested in uti-
lizing systematic quality assurance
surveillance methods in monitor-
ing contractor performance. The
contractor is responsible for man-
aging and controlling the output
of its service through its quality
control plan…. Effective utiliza-
tion of these two components, the
contractor’s quality control plan and
the government’s quality assurance
plan (QASP) is a key reason why
performance-based contracting is a
superior contracting methodology.”21
The QASP details how and when
the government will survey, observe,
test, sample, evaluate, and document
contractor performance according to
the performance work statement. The
QASP explains, “The government’s
QASP and the contractor’s quality
control plan (QCP) work together to
ensure project performance standards
are met.”22
This interaction between the con-
tractor’s QCP and the government’s
QASP is now recognized in FAR
37.602-2:
Agencies shall develop quality
assurance surveillance plans when
acquiring services….These plans
shall recognize the responsibility
of the contractor…to carry out its
quality control obligations and shall
contain measurable inspection and
acceptance criteria correspond-
ing to the performance standards
contained in the statement of work.
The quality assurance surveillance
plans shall focus on the level of per-
formance required by the statement
of work, rather than the method-
ology used by the contractor to
achieve that level of performance.
FAR Subpart 46.3 requires that
in service contracts, all contractors
must have a QCP; it is a mandatory
element of the performance work
statement. The interaction between
the two is described as follows:
The contractor’s quality control plan is
the contractor’s everyday tool to insure
meeting the government’s performance
standards. The government’s quality
assurance surveillance plan is the inter-
mittent check on its effectiveness.23
QA/QC Confusion
As discussed earlier, while the trans-
formation in government contracting
to performance-based contracting has
definitely aided in marking the delin-
eation between QC and QA, there
lingers some residual confusion and
overlapping between the two.
Confusion between the two
terms—what is meant by quality
assurance and quality control—should
be avoided. How can this be done?
Government contract attorneys should
review contract clauses carefully to
ensure that the two terms are defined
and differentiated, with a clear con-
tractual spelling-out of the two items.
As an example, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal
agency, adopted use of the American
Institute of Architects MASTERSPEC©
specification system for its construc-
tion contract specifications. Portions
of the MASTERSPECS had to be
altered, however, to reflect the proper
usage of QA and QC terms, as follows:
Quality Control Versus Quality
Assurance: Quality control is the
responsibility of the construc-
tion contractor. Quality assurance
is the responsibility of the NIH.
Terminology: The A/E must change
the terminology used through-
out Divisions 2 through 16 of the
MASTERSPEC documents. Most
technical sections in MASTERSPEC
Divisions 2 thorough 16 include
a paragraph titled “Quality
Assurance.” “Quality assurance”
is also used in verbiage throughout
these technical sections. For all NIH
projects, all references to “qual-
ity assurance” must be changed
to “quality control” to assign
responsibility to the construction
contractor.24
Previously, we looked at some
examples of confusion between these
terms in several industries. This still
 Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E V S . Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L

is of some concern in the USAF, as tor is required to furnish.…The provides the measures needed to
AFI 63-124 states, “An inspection of contractor, and not the government, lead the contractor to success.
services clause is required for every is responsible for management and Once the quality control program is
service contract. You should adopt the quality control actions to meet the approved, careful application of the
quality control and quality assurance terms of the contract. The role of process and standards presented in
practices used in the commercial the government is quality assurance the remainder of this document will
marketplace to the maximum extent to ensure contract standards are ensure a robust quality assurance
practicable.”25 If there is confusion achieved. In this contract the qual- program.29
in the commercial marketplace as to ity control program is the driver for
usage of the two terms, and the USAF product quality.…The first major Another example of a template
is to rely upon that marketplace for step to ensuring a “self-correct- developed for mass use that well-
its own contractual QA and QC prac- ing” contract is to ensure that the defines QC are specifications
tices, might there not be a danger of quality control program approved drafted by the USAF Center for
confusion between the two terms in at the beginning of the contract Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)
its contracts?
It is impossible to survey the uni-
verse of federal government agency
solicitations to see if QC and QA are
adequately defined and administered.
It is my belief that in general, federal
agency solicitations do a good job
with definitions and the respective
roles and duties each has for the gov-
ernment and the contractor.
For example, the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy issued a template
for a statement of work (SOW) to be
used in elevator maintenance and
repair contracts. An initial caveat
to the SOW template stated that it
was based upon “commercial mar-
ket practices as determined by the
market research conducted on this
requirement.”26 The template con-
tains a separate paragraph discussing
QC, which reads in part, “Contractor
shall develop and maintain a qual-
ity program to ensure maintenance
and repair services are performed in
accordance with ANSI/ASMW A17
and other applicable standards and
codes.”27
The separate QA paragraph simply
reads, “The government will peri-
odically evaluate the contractor’s
performance in accordance with the
quality assurance surveillance plan
(QASP).”28 The template for the QASP
language states in part:

This quality assurance surveillance

plan (QASP) has been developed to
evaluate contractor actions while
implementing this SOW.…The
QASP provides a systematic method
to evaluate the services the contrac-

September 2005 / Contract Management ■ 27

Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E
for use in landscaping contracts. The
template states, “Quality control shall
be provided for the entire project….
Responsibility for accomplishing qual-
ity control is the contractor’s.” The
template then contains five pages of
text that lists specific quality control
plan requirements for the contrac-
tor. This particular template actually
places some QA responsibilities upon
the contractor as well, and notes
specifically that the government is
not required to inspect a contractor’s
work or to protect a contractor from
the consequences of such work.30
Such templates evidence federal
agency actions to implement the per-
formance-based contracting goals of
placing more quality requirements
upon contractors while placing less
responsibility upon the govern-
ment. Assuming that most—if not
all—federal agencies try in good faith
to comply with this goal, and make
efforts to contractually delineate the
differences between QA and QC, then
what is the problem, if any?
In my view, the problem is the fact
that some loose usage of the quality
control and quality assurance terms
exists in various industries today,
and to the extent that federal agency
contract specifications are supposed
to mirror commercial practices, those
specifications may themselves mir-
ror some of the residual confusion
between the two terms.
Additionally, and strictly on an
anecdotal basis, I have seen firsthand
in contract administration a confu-
sion in usage of the two terms, and
a subsequent issue created because
government QA evaluators allegedly
performed QC functions and the con-
tractor attempted to use this to its
benefit in interpreting its quality obli-
gations under the contract.
To fulfill the goals of performance-
based contracting and ensure that
contractors know what is expected
of them, precise usage of the QC and
QA terms—both in written (contract
clauses) and verbal form (in practice in
the administration of government con-
tracts)—is critical. And, if they do not
fulfill those expectations, the govern-
28 ■ Contract Management / September 2005
V S . Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L
ment is able to afford itself of available
remedies to enforce clearly defining
contractual quality expectations. CM
Endnotes
1. Air Force Instruction 63-501 May 31,
1994, “Air Force Acquisition Quality
Program,” Attachment 1, “Glossary of
References, Abbreviations, Acronyms,
and Terms Explained.”
2. Alison B. Kaelin, “Quality Control and
Quality Assurance: Defining the Roles
and Responsibilities of the Contractor’s
QC and the Owner’s QA,” paper pre-
sented at the Painting and Coatings
Expo (PACE 2005), sponsored by the
Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC)
and the Painting and Decorating
Contractors of America (PDCA), at
www.kta.com/knowledge/PACE2005/
QC&QA%20ABK.pdf. Kaelin is the cor-
porate quality assurance manager for
KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
3. AFI 63-501, supra.
4. Kaelin, at 2.
5. Ibid.
6. See FAR 52.246-2(k); Rosendin Electric,
Inc., ASBCA No. 22996, 81-1 BCA
¶14,827.
7. Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Undersecretary for Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics, Share A-
76 Web page, http://emissary.acq.
mil/inst/share.nsf/CONTDEFLOOK/
About+A-76-Process+Model-Previous+Ci
rcular+Appeal, accessed on May 2, 2005.
8. See www.husky.ca/products/quality.
html, accessed on May 10, 2005.
9. See www.asq.org/topics/qa_qc.html,
accessed on May 2, 2005. The American
Society for Quality (ASQ) is a 104,000-
member professional association that
describes itself as “the world’s leading
authority on quality since 1946.”
10. See www.tncpe.org/resources/criteria/
terminology.asp, accessed on May 10,
2005.
11. Protest of Project Software and
Development, Inc., GSBCA No. 8471-P,
86-3 BCA ¶19,082.
12. Wayne Kerr Corporation, NASA BCA No.
670-10, 73-2 BCA ¶10,240.
13. Big 4 Mechanical Contractors Inc.,
ASBCA No. 20897, 77-2 BCA ¶12,716.
14. Ibid.,.at 6.
15. Ibid., at 8.
16. Ibid., at 9.
17. Bailey et al v. United States, U.S. Claim
Ct, 3 Cl Ct. 619 (1983).
18. April 9, 1991, Policy Letter 91-2, “To
the Heads of Executive Agencies, and
Departments, OFPP,” Allan V. Burman,
Administrator. FAR Subpart 37.6 imple-
ments OFPP Policy Letter dated April
9, 1991, which first established the
requirement that results not processes
be specified and that requirements be
stated in measurable terms. This OFPP
Policy Letter was letter rescinded, when
FAR 37.6 was amended/updated to
reflect the modern PBC policy. See Know
Net, www.knownet.hhs.gov, Topic
2.3, “Writing the Quality Assurance
Surveillance Plan.” Know Net is a knowl-
edge management, e-learning, and
performance support system sponsored
by the U.S. government.
19. Ibid.
20. See www.knownet.hhs.gov, accessed
on May 2, 2005.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. See http://orf.od.nih.gov/policy/vol-
ume4-constructionspecs.htm, Office
of Research Facilities, Development
and Operations, National Institute of
Health website, Section R. Construction
Specifications, R.1, Specification Sections,
R.1.1, “Quality Control Versus Quality
Assurance” and R.1.1.1 “Terminology.”
25. AFI 63-124.
26. See www.acqnet.gov/Library/OFPP/
PolicyDocs/afelevator.doc. The Office of
Federal Procurement Policy, or “OFPP,”
falls under the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and provides overall
direction of government-wide procure-
ment policies, regulations, procedures,
and forms for executive agencies and to
promote economy, efficiency, and effec-
tiveness in the procurement of property
and services by the executive branch of
the federal government. 41 USC 404.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. See www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/dc/dcd/
land/mstrland/mlcs_8.asp.