CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

SEC. 201. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.(a) Consideration of Trade-Offs.—(1) In general.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that mechanisms are developed and implemented to require consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of the process for developing requirements for Department of Defense acquisition programs.(2) Elements.—The mechanisms required under this subsection shall ensure, at a minimum, that—(A) Department of Defense officials responsible for acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are provided an appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and raise cost and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the validation authority; and(B) the process for developing requirements is structured to enable incremental, evolutionary, or spiral acquisition approaches, including the deferral of technologies that are not yet mature and capabilities that are likely to significantly increase costs or delay production until later increments or spirals.(b) Duties of Joint Requirements Oversight Council.—Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—(1) in paragraph (1)—(A) by striking “and” at the end of subparagraph (A);(B) by inserting “and” at the end of subparagraph (B) after the semicolon; and(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:“(C) in ensuring the consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military requirements in consultation with the advisors specified in subsection (d);”.(2) in paragraph (3)—(A) by inserting “, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,” after “assist the Chairman”; and(B) by striking “and” after the semicolon at the end;(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:“(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which 123 STAT. 1720 an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement.”.(c) Review of Joint Military Requirements.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military requirement recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has, in making such recommendation—(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands, in accordance with the requirements of section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code (as amended by section 105(a) of this Act);(2) engaged in consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives in accordance with the requirements of section 181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (b)); and(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint portfolio management, including alternative material and non-material solutions, as provided in Department of Defense instructions for the development of joint military requirements.(d) Study Guidance for Analyses of Alternatives.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take the lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director shall solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the Department of Defense and ensure that the guidance requires, at a minimum—(1) full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative considered; and(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint military requirement can be met in a manner that is consistent with the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.(e) Analysis of Alternatives in Certification for Milestone A.—Section 2366a(a) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 101(d)(3) of this Act, is further amended—(1) by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (3);(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4):“(4) that an analysis of alternatives has been performed consistent with study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and”.(f) Duties of Milestone Decision Authority.—Section 2366b(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting “appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that” before “the program is affordable”.