48776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Metadata element Expressed according to HL7 CDA R2 requirements (where applicable) Notes 

</representedOrganization> 

III. Additional Questions 

To better inform future proposals, we seek 

public comment on the following specific 

questions. Commenters are also welcome to 

provide feedback on any of the 

considerations and expectations we 

expressed above even where a specific 

question is not asked. 

Question 13: With respect to the first use 

case identified by the HIT Policy Committee 

for when metadata should be assigned (i.e., 

a patient obtaining their summary care 

record from a health care provider), how 

difficult would it be for EHR technology 

developers to include this capability in EHR 

technology according to the standards 

discussed above in order to support 

meaningful use Stage 2? 

Question 14: Assuming we were to require 

that EHR technology be capable of meeting 

the first use case identified by the HIT Policy 

Committee, how much more difficult would 

it be to design EHR technology to assign 

metadata in other electronic exchange 

scenarios in order to support meaningful use 

Stage 2? Please identify any difficulties and 

the specific electronic exchange scenario(s). 

Question 15: Building on Question 14, and 

looking more long term, how would the 

extension of metadata standards to other 

forms of electronic health information 

exchange affect ongoing messaging and 

transactions? Are there other potential uses 

cases (e.g., exchanging information for 

treatment by a health care provider, for 

research, or public health) for metadata that 

we should be considering? Would the set of 

metadata currently under consideration 

support these different use cases or would we 

need to consider other metadata elements? 

Question 16: Are there other metadata 

categories besides the three (patient identity, 

provenance, and privacy) we considered 

above that should be included? If so, please 

identify the metadata elements that would be 

within the category or categories, your 

rationale for including them, and the syntax 

that should be used to represent the 

metadata element(s). 

Question 17: In addition to the metadata 

standards and data elements we are 

considering, what other implementation 

factors or contexts should be considered as 

we think about implementation 

specifications for these metadata standards? 

Question 18: Besides the HL7 CDA R2 

header, are there other standards that we 

should consider that can provide an 

equivalent level of syntax and specificity? If 

so, do these alternative standards offer any 

benefits with regard to intellectual property 

and licensing issues? 

Question 19: The HL7 CDA R2 header 

contains additional ‘‘structural’’ XML 

elements that help organize the header and 

enable it to be processed by a computer. 

Presently, we are considering leveraging the 

HL7 CDA R2 header insofar as the syntax 

requirement it expresses relate to a metadata 

element we are considering. Should we 

consider including as a proposed 

requirement the additional structures to 

create a valid HL7 CDA R2 header? 

Question 20: Executive Order (EO) 13563 

entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ directs agencies ‘‘to the 

extent feasible, [to] specify performance 

objectives, rather than specifying the 

behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt;’’ (EO 13563, 

Section 1(b)(4)). Besides the current 

standards we are considering, are there 

performance-oriented standards related to 

metadata that we should consider? 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20219 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–45–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 42 

[FAR Case 2009–042; Docket 2011–0087, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AM09 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Documenting Contractor Performance; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction and 

extension of comment date. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects the 

proposed changes published in the 

Federal Register of June 28, 2011, 

regarding the proposed rule for 

Documenting Contractor Performance 

and extends the comment closing date 

by 30 days. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published June, 28, 2011, 

at 76 FR 37704, is extended. Comments 

will be received until September 8, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement 

Analyst, at (202) 501–1448. Please cite 

FAR Case 2009–042. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document corrects the proposed 

changes published in the Federal 

Register of June 28, 2011, regarding the 

proposed rule for Documenting 

Contractor Performance (75 FR 37704) 

and extends the comment closing date 

by 30 days. Text already in the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation was 

inadvertently omitted from the 

restatement of section 42.1503. The text 

was not intended to be removed, and is 

being restored at 42.1503(d) and 

42.1503(h)(1) in the proposed rule. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule FR Doc. 2011– 

16169, beginning on page 37705, in 3rd 

column, in the issue of Tuesday, June 

28, 2011, make the following correction, 

in the instructions of section 42.1503. 

42.1503 [Corrected] 

1. Section 42.1503 is corrected to read 

as follows: 

42.1503 Procedures. 

(a) Agency procedures for the past 

performance evaluation system shall 

generally provide for input to the 

evaluations from the technical office, 

contracting office and, where 

appropriate, end users of the product or 

service. Agency procedures shall 

identify and assign past performance 

evaluation roles and responsibilities to 

those individuals responsible for 

preparing interim and final performance 

evaluations (e.g., contracting officer 

representatives and program managers). 

If agency procedures do not specify the 

individuals responsible for past 

performance evaluation duties, the 

contracting officer will remain 

responsible for this function. Those 

individuals identified may obtain 

information for the evaluation of 

performance from the program office, 

administrative contracting office, audit 

office, end users of the product or 

service, and any other technical or 

business advisor, as appropriate. Interim 

evaluations shall be prepared on an 

annual basis, in accordance with agency 

procedures. 

(b)(1) The evaluation report should 

reflect how the contractor performed. 

The report should include clear relevant 

information that accurately depicts the 

contractor’s performance, and be based 

on objective facts supported by program 

and contract performance data. The 

evaluations should be tailored to the 

contract type, size, content, and 

complexity of the contractual 

requirements. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 48777 

(2) Evaluation factors for each 

assessment shall include, at a minimum, 

the following: 

(i) Technical or Quality. 

(ii) Cost Control (as applicable). 

(iii) Schedule/Timeliness. 

(iv) Management or Business 

Relations. 

(v) Small Business Subcontracting (as 

applicable). 

(3) These evaluation factors, including 

subfactors, may be tailored, however, 

each factor and subfactor shall be 

evaluated and supporting narrative 

provided. 

(4) Each evaluation factor, as listed in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be 

rated in accordance with a five scale 

rating system (e.g., exceptional, very 

good, satisfactory, marginal, and 

unsatisfactory). Rating definitions shall 

reflect those contained in the CPARS 

Policy Guide available at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/. 

(c)(1) When the contract provides for 

incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract 

performance evaluation shall be entered 

into CPARS. (See 16.401(f).) 

(2) When the contract provides for 

award fee, the award fee-contract 

performance adjectival rating as 

described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be 

entered into CPARS. 

(d) Agency evaluations of contractor 

performance, including both negative 

and positive evaluations, prepared 

under this subpart shall be provided to 

the contractor as soon as practicable 

after completion of the evaluation. 

Contractors shall be given a minimum of 

30 days to submit comments, rebutting 

statements, or additional information. 

Agencies shall provide for review at a 

level above the contracting officer to 

consider disagreements between the 

parties regarding the evaluation. The 

ultimate conclusion on the performance 

evaluation is a decision of the 

contracting agency. Copies of the 

evaluation, contractor response, and 

review comments, if any, shall be 

retained as part of the evaluation. These 

evaluations may be used to support 

future award decisions, and should 

therefore be marked ‘‘Source Selection 

Information’’. Evaluation of Federal 

Prison Industries (FPI) performance may 

be used to support a waiver request (see 

8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source 

in accordance with subpart 8.6. The 

completed evaluation shall not be 

released to other than Government 

personnel and the contractor whose 

performance is being evaluated during 

the period the information may be used 

to provide source selection information. 

Disclosure of such information could 

cause harm both to the commercial 

interest of the Government and to the 

competitive position of the contractor 

being evaluated as well as impede the 

efficiency of Government operations. 

Evaluations used in determining award 

or incentive fee payments may also be 

used to satisfy the requirements of this 

subpart. A copy of the annual or final 

past performance evaluation shall be 

provided to the contractor as soon as it 

is finalized. 

(e) Agencies shall require— 

(1) Performance issues be documented 

promptly during contract performance 

to ensure critical details are included in 

the evaluation; 

(2) The award fee determination, if 

required, align with the contractor’s 

performance and be reflected in the 

evaluation; 

(3) Timely assessments and quality 

data (see the quality standards in the 

CPARS Policy Guide at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/) in the contractors past 

performance evaluation; and 

(4) Frequent assessment (e.g., monthly 

or quarterly) of agency compliance with 

the reporting requirements in 42.1502, 

so agencies can readily identify 

delinquent past performance reports 

and monitor their reports for quality 

control. 

(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit 

all past performance reports 

electronically into the CPARS at 

http://www.cpars.gov/. These reports are 

transmitted to the Past Performance 

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at 

http://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance 

reports for classified contracts and 

special access programs shall not be 

reported in CPARS, but will be reported 

as stated in this subpart and in 

accordance with agency procedures. 

Agencies shall ensure that appropriate 

management and technical controls are 

in place to ensure that only authorized 

personnel have access to the data and 

the information safeguarded in 

accordance with 42.1503(b). 

(g) Agencies shall use the past 

performance information in PPIRS that 

is within the last three years (six for 

construction and architect-engineer 

contracts) and information contained in 

the Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 

e.g., termination for default or cause. 

(h) Other contractor performance 

information. (1) Agencies shall ensure 

information is reported in the FAPIIS 

module of CPARS within 3 working 

days after a contracting officer— 

(i) Issues a final determination that a 

contractor has submitted defective cost 

or pricing data; 

(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the 

final determination concerning 

defective cost or pricing data pursuant 

to 15.407–1(d); 

(iii) Issues a final termination for 

cause or default notice; or 

(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal 

or a conversion of a termination for 

default to a termination for 

convenience. 

(2) Agencies shall establish CPARS 

focal points who will register users to 

report data into the FAPIIS module of 

CPARS (available at http:// 

www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS). 

(3) The primary duties of the CPARS 

focal point is to administer CPARS and 

FAPIIS access. Agencies must also 

establish PPIRS group managers. The 

primary duties of the PPIRS group 

managers are to grant or deny access to 

PPIRS. The CPARS Reference Material, 

on the Web site, includes reporting 

instructions. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

Rodney P. Lantier, 

Deputy Director for Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20089 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0057; MO 

92210–0–0008 B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Nueces River and 

Plateau Shiners as Threatened or 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Nueces River shiner (Cyprinella sp.) 

and plateau shiner (Cyprinella lepida) 

as threatened or endangered and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

Nueces River and plateau shiners is not 

warranted at this time. However, we ask 

the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the threats to the Nueces 

River and plateau shiners or their 

habitats at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on August 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS