Form assigned HIV Rapid Testing Questionnaire

66783

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Notices

life of a contract. Contractor

performance information can leverage

the use of common contracting events

such as option extensions, earned value

management discussions, and award fee

discussions to populate a

Governmentwide database and reduce

the reliance on external steps and non-

value added processes. As additional

value, Government agencies could be

encouraged to monitor performance and

provide evaluations of other

Government agencies performing on

Memorandum of Understanding

agreements and other interagency

agreements. The benefit of this effort

will result in a unified method of

vendor evaluations.

An Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) memorandum dated July 3, 2002

announced that all Federal contractor

past performance information currently

captured through existing tools would

be centrally available on-line for use by

all Federal agency contracting officials

effective July 1, 2002. A

Governmentwide past performance

retrieval database supports the

Administration’s E-Government

initiatives to ‘‘unify & simplify’’ and

reduce burden by eliminating collection

redundancies. Performance data is

currently collected in the Past

Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS), which is a web-

enabled, Governmentwide application.

Two of the collection tools have been

eliminated: Past Performance

Information Management System (PPIS)

and Architect-Engineer Contract

Administration Support System

(ACAAS). Other collection systems are

positioned to be turned off in the next

year. However, it was determined by

senior procurement executives that a

lack of widespread use resulted in

insufficient information in the

Governmentwide shared database. A

review of how to streamline the

collection of data, simplify the

evaluations of vendors, and improve the

value of the data in the

Governmentwide database was

requested.

In a memorandum, OMB’s Office of

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)

established a working group to re–visit

the regulations, policies, and business

considerations associated with

contractor performance information.

During this tasking, the working

group reviewed some of the thresholds

and made the following

recommendations:

•

The contractor performance

information be removed from the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),

Part 36 and moved to FAR Subpart

42.15 so that all of the contractor

performance information is in one

location in the FAR.

•

Removed the reference ‘‘past’’ from

contractor performance information.

Evaluating contractor performance is

encouraged throughout the life of the

contract, not just a completed contract.

As such, it is useful both as an

evaluation factor in awards and as a tool

to encourage continuous outstanding

performance.

•

Removed duplications in the FAR

guidance.

•

Clarified the guidance relating to

contractor performance information.

•

Revisited and discussed the

different feeder and retrieval systems.

The working group has prepared

proposed language for the FAR and has

updated OFPP’s guide ‘‘Best Practices

for Collecting and Using Current and

Past Performance Information’’ (June

2002) incorporating the Department of

Defense’s (DOD), Office of the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology & Logistics (Defense

Procurement and Acquisition Policy)

guide, ‘‘A Guide to Collection and Use

of Past Performance Information’’

(Version 3 May 2003).

OFPP’s current guide was a joint

effort of agency procurement and

program officials and representatives

from the private sector. The techniques

and practices used to implement the

current and past performance initiatives

that are discussed in the OFPP best

practices guide are not mandatory

regulatory guidance. They are useful

examples of techniques for recording

and using contractor performance to

better assess contracts and to enhance

the source selection process.

DOD’s guide was a joint effort by

members from the DOD Past

Performance Integrated Product Team.

The Team’s purpose was to serve as a

practical reference tool regarding the

DOD past performance policy. It was

designed to articulate the key

techniques and practices for the use and

collection of past performance

information for use by the entire

acquisition workforce in both

Government and industry. It explains

best practices for the use of past

performance information during the

periods of source selection, ongoing

performance, and collection of

information.

The new guide is entitled ‘‘Contractor

Performance in the Acquisition Process’’

and can be accessed at http://

www.acquisition.gov. It also is a joint

effort of Federal agency and DOD

procurement and program officials. In

an effort to continue to solicit private

sector input, it is distributed for public

comment. This guide is designed to help

agencies know their role in addressing

and using contractor performance

information. It addresses the types of

performance information that exist,

resources for finding the data, and

standards to employ. It discusses best

use of performance data throughout the

acquisition process, from the pre-award

and planning phase, through source

selection, and into contract evaluation.

The proposed FAR rule reflecting the

findings of this tasking is currently

being processed by the FAR team and

will be issued for comment at a later

date.

Dated: November 7, 2006.

Teresa Sorrenti,

Director, Office of Acquisition Systems.

[FR Doc. E6–19392 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–61–S

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30Day–07–0595]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork

Reduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of

information collection requests under

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). To request a copy of these

requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance

Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an

e-mail to [email protected]. Send written

comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC or by fax to (202) 395–6974. Written

comments should be received within 30

days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Performance Evaluation Program for

Rapid HIV Testing—Revision—National

Center for Health Marketing (NCHM),

Coordinating Center for Health

Information and Service (CoCHIS),

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

To support our mission of improving

public health and preventing disease

through continuously improving

laboratory practices, the Model

Performance Evaluation Program

(MPEP), Division of Laboratory Systems,

Coordinating Center for Health

Information and Service, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention intends

to continue the currently ongoing HIV

VerDate Aug<31>2005

20:27 Nov 15, 2006

Jkt 211001

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1

pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

66784

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Notices

rapid testing performance evaluation

program (HIV Rapid Testing MPEP).

This program offers external

performance evaluation (PE) for rapid

tests such as the OraQuick



Rapid

HIV–1 Antibody Test, approved as a

waived test by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, and for other licensed

tests such as the MedMira Reveal



.

Participation in PE programs is expected

to lead to improved HIV testing

performance because participants have

the opportunity to identify areas for

improvement in testing practices.

Participants include facilities and

testing sites that perform HIV Rapid

Testing. This program helps to ensure

accurate testing as a basis for

development of HIV prevention and

intervention strategies.

This external quality assessment

program is made available at no cost (for

receipt of sample panels) to sites

performing rapid testing for HIV

antibodies. This program offers

laboratories/testing sites an opportunity

for:

(1) Assuring that the laboratories/

testing sites are providing accurate tests

through external quality assessment,

(2) Improving testing quality through

self-evaluation in a nonregulatory

environment,

(3) Testing well characterized samples

from a source outside the test kit

manufacturer,

(4) Discovering potential testing

problems so that laboratories/testing

sites can adjust procedures to eliminate

them,

(5) Comparing individual laboratory/

testing site results to others at a national

and international level, and

(6) Consulting with CDC staff to

discuss testing issues.

Participants in the MPEP HIV Rapid

Testing program are required to

complete a laboratory practices

questionnaire survey annually. In

addition, participants are required to

submit results twice/year after testing

mailed performance evaluation samples.

There is no cost to respondents other

than their time. The estimated

annualized burden is 625.

E

STIMATED

A

NNUALIZED

B

URDEN

H

OURS

Form name

Number of

respondents

Number of

responses per

respondent

Average

burden per

response

(in hours)

HIV Rapid Testing Laboratory Practices Questionnaire .............................................................

750

1

30/60

HIV Rapid Testing Form EZ ........................................................................................................

750

2

10/60

Dated: November 9, 2006.

Joan F. Karr,

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E6–19369 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30Day–07–0222]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork

Reduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of

information collection requests under

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). To request a copy of these

requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance

Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an

e-mail to [email protected]. Send written

comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC or by fax to (202) 395–6974. Written

comments should be received within 30

days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Questionnaire Design Research

Laboratory (QDRL) 2007–2009, (OMB

No. 0920–0222)—Extension—National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

The Questionnaire Design Research

Laboratory (QDRL) conducts

questionnaire pre-testing and evaluation

activities for CDC surveys (such as the

NCHS National Health Interview

Survey, OMB No. 0920–0214) and other

federally sponsored surveys. The QDRL

conducts cognitive interviews, focus

groups, mini field-pretests, and

experimental research in laboratory and

field settings, both for applied

questionnaire evaluation and more basic

research on response errors in surveys.

In a cognitive interview, a

questionnaire design specialist

interviews a volunteer participant.

QDRL participants are usually recruited

by expressing their personal willingness

to participate. They read or hear about

the study through media

advertisements, flyers, and word-of-

mouth, and either call the laboratory

answering machine number or contact a

person coordinating the recruitment.

Thus, participation is strictly voluntary

and participants are not chosen

randomly.

The most common questionnaire

evaluation method is the cognitive

interview. The interviewer administers

the draft survey questions as written,

but also probes the participant in depth

about interpretations of questions, recall

processes used to answer them, and

adequacy of response categories to

express answers, while noting points of

confusion and errors in responding.

Interviews are generally conducted in

small rounds of 10–15 interviews;

ideally, the questionnaire is re-worked

between rounds and revisions are tested

interactively until interviews yield

relatively few new insights. When

possible, cognitive interviews are

conducted in the survey’s intended

mode of administration. For example,

when testing telephone survey

questionnaires, participants often

respond to the questions via a telephone

in a laboratory room. Under this

condition, the participant answers

without face-to-face interaction. QDRL

staff watch for response difficulties from

an observation room, and then conduct

a face-to-face debriefing with in-depth

probes. Cognitive interviewing provides

useful data on questionnaire

performance at minimal cost and

respondent burden. Similar

methodology has been adopted by other

Federal agencies, as well as by academic

and commercial survey organizations.

NCHS is requesting 3 years of OMB

Clearance for the project. There are no

costs to respondents other than their

time. The total estimated annualized

burden hours are 600.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

20:27 Nov 15, 2006

Jkt 211001

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1

pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES