This is pretty common in aerospace, defense and, I imagine, alot of other government facing industries. For something like this the inspection procedure is like

This is pretty common in aerospace, defense and, I imagine, alot of other government facing industries. For something like this the inspection procedure is likely approved by the government and verification it's being performed properly is done with lots of submitted and retained paperwork. So maybe less judge and jury and more private vs public attorney filing the same motion. Yes, they could have biases but they both are performing the same task, based on the same laws. Of course that doesn't always stop mistakes/negligence (see this incident) or bad actors (see below): https://news.usni.org/2020/06/19/navy-has-mitigated-risk-of-suspect-steel-from-company-in-federal-fraud-case https://news.usni.org/2020/06/19/navy-has-mitigated-risk-of-... I will also add that just because something is inspected by the government does not insure quality. Usually failures in inspection are due to inexperienced and/or overworked inspectors, higher ups pushing to "get things through" or to reduce costs, or other banal reasons just as possible to occur whether it's Uncle Sam or Boeing writing the inspectors checks.