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.

(Pub. L. 113–235, div. D, title III, § 308, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2324.)