To refine lomapaseo's post a little, the FAA delegates an organizational delegation to the applicant company (Boeing, in this case), who then nominates individuals employed by the company to be delegated persons. The FAA would accept each person to hold a delegation, based upon their merits, and hold that [each] person directly responsible to the FAA. And, the FAA would hold the delegated company also responsible for the overall management of the company's delegation.
In the case of a small problem, the FAA could elect to increase oversight of the delegated work. Surveillance is an FAA responsibility, and its depth and frequency are based upon risk analysis done solely by the FAA. A greater problem could be addressed by reviewing the delegation of the individual, or the company delegation as a whole. For my experience, a delegation holder acts rapidly, and definitively to accept the FAA's desired oversight to prevent the FAA considering removing delegation.
It is a dual loyalty situation, where the delegated person is employed by, and paid by the company, which discharging their their responsibility to the FAA. This is a part fo the reason that the company also holds organizational delegation, so they have something to loose if they appear to influence the work of the delegated person(s).
This is a necessary system, otherwise the FAA would have to employ hundreds more highly qulified people in the certification role, and certification would slow down. It's just a matter of finding the balance of delegation and oversight.