The following editorial appeared Sunday in the Tri-City Herald.

Hanford’s latest contract proposals prove the Department of Energy needs to take a broader view of its obligations.

Cleanup is the top priority, and DOE has that much right.

But community interests deserve consideration too. After all, the Tri-Cities is largely populated by families who have spent lifetimes carrying out government policies at Hanford.

Right now, that isn’t happening. Proposals for three new contracts at the nuclear site don’t contain adequate provisions for community involvement, economic development or incentives for small businesses.

Sure, it’s easy to understand the appeal of a procurement philosophy aimed at limiting cleanup costs to the minimum required for the job.

If you’re Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman or Jack Surash, deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Environmental Management, it probably seems like a no-brainer.

But these top DOE officials need to reconsider.

If their offices were in Richland instead of Washington, D.C., they’d find it impossible to view Hanford cleanup in isolation from the social and historical context that surrounds it.

The community is beginning its 64th year as part of the nation’s nuclear weapons program, dating back to the selection of the little farming towns of Hanford and White Bluffs for the world’s first plutonium production facility in December 1943.

And for the most part, DOE and its contractors have recognized the obligations inherent in that relationship. Past initiatives have made the Tri-Cities a better place to live and helped diversify our economy away from almost total dependence on Hanford.

But political and business climates have changed. Without mandates, the pressure to come in with the lowest bid will make it difficult for competitors for the new contracts to factor in the cost of being a good neighbor.

And without explicit and strong requirements, the support for local small businesses – the kind that are fully vested in the community – will falter.

No one wants handouts or a blank check, but we do want assurances that companies awarded billions of dollars in Hanford contracts recognize their stake in the community.

Bodman or Surash could fix the shortcomings by tweaking the bid requirements before the final request for proposals is released.

Awards must be based on price and performance, not on what the bidders say they are willing to do for the community. There’s no argument there.

But potential contractors also should know that they’re expected to be a part of the community and play a role in assuring the Mid-Columbia will continue to thrive after cleanup is complete.

There’s no profit for companies at Hanford and no success for DOE without the efforts of families that will still be here after the last contractor is gone.

Hanford contracts need to reflect that reality.