Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "While the previous two-contract structure of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program met Department of Defense (DOD) needs for unprecedented mission success and an at-the-ready launch capability, the scope of its capability contract limited DOD’s ability to identify the cost of an individual launch, as direct launch costs were not separated from other costs. Minimal insight into contractor cost or pricing data meant DOD may have lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) reformed the way the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare, contracts with claims administration contractors. From its inception, the process for selecting Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims administration contractors was stipulated by Congress and differed from most other federal contracts in that, among other things, the Medicare contracts were not awarded through a competitive process. The MMA repealed limitations on the types of contractors CMS could use and required that CMS use competitive procedures to select new contracting entities to process medical claims and provide incentives for contractors to provide quality services. CMS has implemented the MMA contracting reform requirements by shifting and consolidating all claims administration tasks to new entities called Medicare Administrative Contractors. CMS is currently in the process of further consolidating these contracts. The agency also uses other contractors to review claims to ensure payments are proper and investigate potential fraud."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Of the 29 federal programs GAO reviewed (which accounted for about 86 percent of federal program spending for states or their residents in fiscal year 2010), statehood would likely affect 11 programs. For 3 other programs, while the programs themselves would likely not change under statehood, eligibility determinations for these programs could be affected indirectly by changes that could occur to benefits in other programs. Statehood would not likely affect the 15 remaining programs. See figure below."