In fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional defense committees (as defined in U.S.C. 101(a)(16) 1) a report, on each major warhead refurbishment program that reaches the Phase 6.3 milestone, that provides an analysis of alternatives. Such report shall include-
(1) a full description of alternatives considered prior to the award of Phase 6.3;
(2) a comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each alternative considered;
(3) identification of the cost and risk of critical technology elements associated with each alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs;
(4) identification of the cost and risk of additional capital asset and infrastructure capabilities required to support production and certification of each alternative;
(5) a comparative analysis of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs for any military requirement intended to enhance warhead safety, security, or maintainability, including any requirement to consolidate and/or integrate warhead systems or mods as compared to at least one other feasible refurbishment alternative the Nuclear Weapons Council considers appropriate; and
(6) a life-cycle cost estimate for the alternative selected that details the overall cost, scope, and schedule planning assumptions.
(
Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, and also as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Defense Act which comprises this chapter.
1 So in original. Probably should be "10 U.S.C. 101(a)(16)".