David Brockman's recent In Focus column lauding Fluor Hanford's 13-years' worth of accomplishments at the nuclear reservation was a puzzler.

The praise heaped on the outgoing contractor by the Hanford operations manager was certainly justified.

Indeed, Fluor's record -- as an environmental cleanup contractor and a generous corporate neighbor -- is commendable.

But the list of accomplishments outlined in Brockman's column leads to an inescapable question.

If Fluor was as good as Brockman says -- and they were -- then why didn't the Department of Energy retain this outstanding company?

Routinely rebidding major operations contracts at Hanford is a costly practice that hurts morale and stalls progress.

Unless there's clear and convincing evidence that taxpayers will benefit from an open competition, negotiating a new agreement with existing contractors makes a lot more sense.

It doesn't help that the near constant churn of major contractors at Hanford appears to be a DOE record.

That's a point we've been making for a long time, but Fluor's departure puts a new focus on the folly of pursuing change simply for the sake of change.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu ought to revisit the policies that lead to this wasteful practice.