definition in this case, Mr. Hayashi’s request is not a “specification” at all. Further, Mr. Hayashi’s e-mail cannot be considered a specification of the Subcontract because it did not deal directly with Defendant JTSI’s contracted-for services and obligations. For example, had Mr. Hayashi met with Defendant JTSI on several occasions regarding security procedures at the VCC, and ultimately issued a memo to Defendant JTSI establishing new security procedures to be implemented by VCC personnel, such a communication could be a reasonably precise specification. Likewise, if an individual were harmed in some way from Defendant JTSI’s implementation of those hypothetical procedures approved by the government, Defendant JTSI could argue for application o 4 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1145 (D.Haw.2004) (<HOLDING>); Hew-Len v. F.W. Woolworth, 737 F.Supp. 1104,
recognizing that hawaii law does not allow parnar claims where the public policy at issue is contained in a statute  that provides a remedy for violations of that policy holding that public policy claims are unavailable where the statute in question provides the employee with a wrongful discharge remedy holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that where statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy