Public Comment

From: Fronczek, Lisa Jean (Fed)
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 6:22 PM
To: PRAcomments
Subject: Reference: Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) - OMB Control Number 0690-0032
Ms Dumas,

As a Federal
Program
Officer, I see
completed
Research
Performance
Progress
Reports (RPPR,
OMB Control
Number 0690-0032) several times a year. While the form is useful in letting awardees what type of
information that is important to submit, it is NOT formatted to be user-friendly either for the project
team who needs to enter in the information or for the Federal Program Officer who needs to review the
form. Please consider making these changes when the new form is issued:
1) Issuing the form either as a word-processing document (e.g., Microsoft Word) and a PDF. When
designing the PDF make the fields both expand to fit the full contents of the information not just
scroll to see the extra information. If it is only set to scroll, it is not possible to print the
document for the files and still read the information.
Image: In this example, the awardee provided detailed accomplishment information; however,
on the top 22 lines of their response is shown. Another 25 lines appear if you click on the form
and scroll down. Of course, this text can only be read when I copy and pasted this into another
application. Printing the document is a what you see is what you get… meaning if you can’t see
the text without scroll, you can’t see it on the paper either.
2) It would also be nice to have a consistent font size through the document.

double that size. This also occurs in the Authorizing Official section.

Image: Showing
the different font
sizes. Notice how
the person’s name
is small, yet the
person’s title is

RPPR is meant to be used to document research accomplishments yet the fields do not allow for
much information. The current form discourages awards from providing useful information. For
example, If the awardee enters in more than the field is sized for the font continues to get
smaller and smaller.

Image: Notice
the actual size of
the text. The
information in
field 24 can be
read with the
naked eye;
however, the
information in
field 25 can only
be read if I open
it if the page is
zoomed in several times. This issue is not limited to Field 25 but is prevalent through the form.
Image: Another
example. Just
10 names is too
much for field
33.

fields in different sizes!

Image: Notice
that the same
response “N/A”
is shown on
two different

I understand and appreciate the rationale behind creating the form. I support the idea to standardize
the information requested from awardees. I want to make it easy for the awardees to enter information
and review it before submitting it to us. I’m just encouraging you to not only consider what information
should be captured under the Paperwork Reduction Act but to also consider how the form will be
implemented. Please ask the DOC grants IT team to test the new form with a lot of data not just a few
letters which tests the navigation through the form. If you have specific questions or would like to test
the new form, I would be glad to engage with the form designers.
Sincerely,
Lisa Fronczek
Lisa Jean Fronczek
Office of Advanced Manufacturing/ Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
O: 301-975-6633
[email protected]