NavyKO08

I should have said "services" not "SCA covered services." My bad. I corrected it. These other locations have everyting to do with the logic/reasoning you are using. So, that's why I'm asking how you would apply your logic to "Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island..." to determine whether their unemployment rates are higher than the U.S. unemployment rate. I assume we should apply the same logic to all of the "Noncontiguous States" and I think it would be valuable to see how your logic applied to these other territories. As far as the U.S. Navy having a policy or standard procedure on whether this clause should be used for Guam, it doesn't exist as far as I know. I certainly would not be posting this question on this board if I knew such a thing existed. And, just because one Navy contracting officer included it (or didn't include it) in one contract does not mean that it is the correct interpretation and definitely does not represent the Navy's stance as a whole.

Thank you Joel for your response. However, I still can't imagine a scenario where Congress (or any other policy maker or statistician for that matter) would want us to compare unemployment rates that were potentially calculated using different criteria from completely different time periods. In addition, please consider the fact that the term "Noncontiguous State" in this subpart also includes "Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island." How do you suppose this clause should apply to services on these islands?

It depends on how it's interpreted. I think (2) can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the Secretary of Labor will determine both the National Average unemployment rate and the non-contiguous unemployment rate. Practically speaking, it would make sense if that is what the clause prescription authors meant. You need to have one consistent source for both data points, otherwise, you may be comparing apples and oranges. How Guam's BLS determines Guam's unemployment rate may be very different than how the Secretary of Labor determines the U.S. unemployment rate. Furthermore, the most current Guam rate is for September 2013 while the current BLS rate is for March 2014. Am I supposed to compare September 2013 unemployment rates to March 2014 rates. That doesn't make sense. Also, it doesn't make sense to compare the Guam rates to September 2013 U.S. rates because those are both outdated.

Thanks. I agree with you. Just hoping there wasn't a different precedent (or point of view) I wasn't aware of.

Background Information: I am drafting a solicitation (under FAR Part 15) that involves services (SCA applicable) predominantly in Hawaii and also in Guam. According to DFARS 222.7000( (2), I am required to include the clause at 252.222-7000 when "the unemployment rate in the noncontiguous State (e.g. Guam) is in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the SECRETARY OF LABOR." (Please note that the definition of "Noncontiguous State" in this subpart includes Hawaii and Guam.) However, I have found a serious issue with this prescription. After researching online (and finding nothing from the Secretary of Labor in regards to the current unemployment rate in Guam), I contacted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Secretary of Labor agency responsible for determining unemployment rates. I received an e-mail back from the BLS indicating that the BLS does NOT publish unemployment data for Guam. Therefore, utilizing only statistics provided by the Secretary of Labor, there is no way for contracting officers to determine whether or not the unemployment rate in Guam is "in excess of the national average rate of unemployment." My question is - what approach should I take? I was able to confirm that Hawaii's unemployment rate is lower than the national average. Therefore, I would only need to include the clause if Guam's unemployment rate was higher than the national average. Since Guam's rate is not available from the Secretary of Labor, do I simply not include the clause? Has anyone else had experience with this clause or another clause where it was impossible to determine if the clause was required based on an inadequate clause prescription? Thanks in advance for any advice or thoughts.