What you get4 things, handed over
- A quality program your team can maintain
- Procedures written against how the work actually runs
- Tools and integrations you own outright
- A handover, not a hostage situation
The document hierarchy, and the loop that keeps it honest. A manual states policy, procedures say who does what, work instructions say how, and records fall out of the bottom as evidence. The return path is the part most programs are missing: findings from the records have to reach back up and change the procedure, or the same nonconformance arrives every quarter forever.
How it runsbuild5 steps · 2 decisions
Read what you are actually held to
The standard, and the contract clause that invokes it. These disagree more often than people expect.
Walk the process as it runs
Including the workarounds nobody documented. This is where the real gap shows up.
DecisionIs the gap the paper, or the practice? They need opposite fixes.
Write against reality
Documents and tools that describe what your team does, corrected where it has to change. Not a purchased template with your logo on it.
Dry-run it
The same checklist an auditor uses, or the old process run in parallel with the new one, early enough that findings are still cheap.
DecisionFix it, or accept the risk in writing. Both are valid; pretending is not.
Hand it over
Training, the record set, the source, and a maintenance rhythm so it does not rot the week I leave.
What this covers6 areas, and where each one bites
- Document hierarchyManual, procedures, work instructions, forms. Four levels, each one answering a different question, none of them repeating another.
- Corrective actionA finding that does not change a document is a finding that recurs. The loop back from record to procedure is the whole mechanism.
- Process controlWork instructions written at the bench, inspection points where the cost of being wrong jumps, and a yield you can actually plot.
- Systems integrationAn adapter between two systems that both work is usually cheaper than the replacement someone proposed. Documented, with a diagram that matches.
- RecordsEvidence a reviewer can quote, kept in a form your team maintains rather than one that needs me back every quarter.
- HandoverTraining, the record set, the source, and a maintenance rhythm. You should be able to fire me without losing the system.
Domains are where the principal has built this kind of program. They are background, not a client list, and no certification is claimed on the strength of them.
The opinion behind it
Fewer documents that people actually follow beat a complete set that nobody opens. Auditors can tell the difference in about ten minutes.
What holds this workstandards we know, not certifications we hold
- NQA-1Quality assurance for nuclear facility applications. Eighteen requirements, and the supplier chain that has to satisfy them.Program + supply chain
- 10 CFR 50 App. BThe federal rule NQA-1 exists to satisfy. Where the two disagree, this one is the law.Regulatory floor
- ISO 9001The general management system standard. Lighter than NQA-1 and a better fit outside nuclear work.Management system
- Source you ownEvery tool built here ships with its source and its deploy control, in your account, under your licence.Every engagement
Where it stopsan empty row is work this firm does not take
What that covers
- Quality programsBuild a nuclear-grade quality program from nothing, or fix the one that failed.
- Management systemsProcedures, corrective actions, and document control that people will actually follow.
- Manufacturing readinessWork instructions, process controls, and the boring rigor that makes builds repeatable.
- Systems integrationMake the systems you already paid for talk to each other.
- Internal toolsThe small custom app your team keeps asking for and no vendor sells.
Capacity
One engineer, and the machines. The reading and the first draft of a document set are machine work; the judgement about what your team can actually sustain is not, and that is the part you are hiring.
There is no bench. A programme larger than one person can carry properly is one I will tell you about before it starts, not halfway through.
How the work gets doneevery engagement, every page
Bots read the portals
SAM, the state portals and the subcontracting boards, every day, so no opportunity depends on someone remembering to look.
Models do the first pass
The reading, the mapping and the first draft of document-heavy work, where a machine is fast and tireless.
A person decides and signs
Every judgement call, every commitment and every signature is human, and the record says who.
One engineer, fixed scope
You get the person you evaluated, on a scope agreed before the work starts, and no invented follow-on.
How you can hire mescope is agreed first; price is a conversation — the scope sheet
On retainer
A senior quality lead a few days a month, holding the program and reachable when something goes sideways.
Fixed scope
A defined look at one problem, a defined amount of time, a written answer. No obligation after.
By the hour
An hour with someone who has built the thing you are asking about. Straight answers, no deck.
Start a conversationStraight answer, no deck. What it takes to start.
One standard, more than one verbwhy these are four sheets and not four firms
- NQA-1NQA-1 — Build: we write toNQA-1 — Prove: we write toNQA-1 — Automate: does not applyNQA-1 — Win: does not apply
- 10 CFR 50 App. B10 CFR 50 App. B — Build: we write to10 CFR 50 App. B — Prove: we write to10 CFR 50 App. B — Automate: does not apply10 CFR 50 App. B — Win: we write to
- ISO 9001ISO 9001 — Build: we write toISO 9001 — Prove: we write toISO 9001 — Automate: does not applyISO 9001 — Win: does not apply
- CMMC Level 2CMMC Level 2 — Build: we write toCMMC Level 2 — Prove: we write toCMMC Level 2 — Automate: does not applyCMMC Level 2 — Win: we write to
- NIST SP 800-171NIST SP 800-171 — Build: we write toNIST SP 800-171 — Prove: we write toNIST SP 800-171 — Automate: we write toNIST SP 800-171 — Win: does not apply
- WCAG 2.1 AAWCAG 2.1 AA — Build: does not applyWCAG 2.1 AA — Prove: we write toWCAG 2.1 AA — Automate: does not applyWCAG 2.1 AA — Win: we write to
- Section 508Section 508 — Build: does not applySection 508 — Prove: we write toSection 508 — Automate: does not applySection 508 — Win: we write to
- FARFAR — Build: does not applyFAR — Prove: does not applyFAR — Automate: does not applyFAR — Win: we write to
- Audit trailAudit trail — Build: we write toAudit trail — Prove: we write toAudit trail — Automate: we write toAudit trail — Win: we write to
Audit trailThe one line that crosses all four. Every practice here ends in a record of who decided what, because none of the others survive without it.