The bill amends the Small Business Act to force federal agencies that run SBIR or STTR programs to publish more granular data about research institutions subcontracted by award recipients. For each subcontracted research institution the law would require agencies to list the name, location, whether the entity is a higher‑education institution, a nonprofit (other than a higher‑education institution), or an FFRDC, and—if a college or university—whether it fits any of seven minority‑serving or special HEA categories.
The measure also expands the SBA’s public SBIR/STTR database to cover Phase III awards (in addition to Phase I and II) and directs the Administrator to update the database within one year of enactment. The change increases visibility into which universities and other research organizations participate in federal small‑business research contracts, improving oversight and equity analysis while raising practical issues about administrative burden, data quality, and commercial confidentiality.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds required website and database fields showing subcontracted research institutions on SBIR Phase I–III and STTR Phase I–II awards: name, location, institutional type (college/university, nonprofit, or FFRDC), and HEA minority‑serving classifications for higher‑education institutions. It also amends statute to include Phase III in the SBA’s searchable database and sets a one‑year implementation deadline for the Administrator.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies operating SBIR/STTR programs (for example, DoD, NIH, NSF, DOE) must collect and publish the new fields; the SBA must revise its public database. Small business awardees must report subcontractor information, and subcontracted research institutions (universities, nonprofits, FFRDCs) will be identified on public pages.
Why It Matters
The law fills a persistent data gap about university and other research partner participation in federally funded small‑business R&D, enabling policy analysis of distribution and MSI engagement. That visibility can change procurement practices and compliance needs, while forcing agencies to operationalize new reporting and verification workflows.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill instructs agencies with SBIR or STTR programs to add specified information about any research institution that a small business subcontracts to perform research under a Phase I, II, or III (SBIR) or Phase I or II (STTR) award. The new data points are straightforward: institution name and location; a checkbox indicating whether the partner is an institution of higher education, a nonprofit (other than a college/university), or a federally funded research and development center; and, for higher‑education institutions, flags for seven categories drawn from the Higher Education Act (such as Hispanic‑Serving Institution, Tribal College or University, Part B institution, Predominantly Black Institution, and others).
Concretely, the bill amends three parts of the Small Business Act: the SBIR website provision (section 9(g)(8)), the STTR website provision (section 9(o)(9)), and the database/reporting provision (section 9(k)). The database language not only adds the subcontractor fields but also expands statutory coverage to explicitly include Phase III SBIR awards where earlier statutory text only referenced Phase I and II.
That expansion means the searchable federal database will be the single public source for Phase I–III SBIR and Phase I–II STTR subcontractor information once implemented.The Administrator of the SBA must update the public database to include the new fields within one year of the law’s enactment. The bill does not, however, prescribe a standard data format beyond the listed items, nor does it create an explicit verification process or penalties for inaccurate submissions; those implementation details are left to agencies and the SBA.
Because the law focuses on public disclosure rather than funding rules, it does not alter award eligibility or change how agencies evaluate proposals — it changes reporting and public transparency.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends section 9(g)(8) and 9(o)(9) of the Small Business Act to require agencies to publish the name and location of each research institution subcontracted on covered SBIR/STTR awards.
For each subcontracted partner the statute requires agencies to identify whether it is an institution of higher education, a nonprofit (not an HEI), or a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC).
If a subcontracted partner is a higher‑education institution, agencies must flag whether it meets any of seven HEA categories (Part B institution, Hispanic‑Serving Institution, Tribal College or University, Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian‑serving, Predominantly Black Institution, AANAPISI, or Native American‑serving nontribal institution).
The bill adds Phase III SBIR awards to the SBA’s public database requirements (previous text referenced only Phase I and II) and inserts the new subcontractor fields into multiple database clauses.
The SBA Administrator must include the newly required fields in the public database and on agency SBIR/STTR websites not later than one year after enactment; the bill leaves format, verification, and enforcement details to implementing agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Add subcontractor identity and institutional classifications to SBIR public pages
This subsection inserts a new subparagraph requiring agencies to show, for each Phase I, II, or III SBIR award, the name and location of any research institution subcontracted to perform research and whether that partner is a college/university, nonprofit (other than an HEI), or an FFRDC. For colleges and universities the agency must also indicate which HEA‑defined categories (the seven listed by statute) apply. Operationally, agencies will need to add data collection steps to award reporting and display these items on SBIR program pages.
Mirror SBIR subcontractor disclosures for STTR awards
The bill applies the same disclosure requirements to Phase I and II STTR awards. Because STTR awards are designed around small business–university collaboration, the statute codifies visibility into that collaboration by name, location, institutional type, and HEAMSI (Minority‑Serving Institution) flags. Agencies that host STTR competitions will have to capture these fields in their award management systems and publish them publicly.
Expand the SBA searchable database and add subcontractor fields
This clause revises the SBA’s statutory database duties: it replaces references to only Phase I and II awards with Phase I, II, and III for SBIR/STTR reporting and inserts a new clause requiring the database to include subcontracted research‑institution name, location, institutional type, and HEA category flags. Practically, the SBA must modify database schemas and APIs (or its public UI) to accommodate the new fields and harmonize inputs across participating agencies.
One‑year deadline for SBA to update the public database
Even though the bill leaves formatting and verification to the Administrator and agencies, it imposes a firm statutory deadline: the SBA must include the newly required information in the relevant database sections within one year of enactment. That deadline forces a defined implementation window but does not specify budget, staffing, or technical standards for how the data will be validated or presented.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Science across all five countries.
Explore Science in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Minority‑serving and other higher‑education institutions: The public flags increase visibility of MSIs’ participation in federal small‑business research, aiding institutional reporting, recruitment, and equity analyses (they can show up in searches and metrics derived from the database).
- Policymakers and oversight bodies: Congress, GAO, and agency OIGs gain a searchable feed to analyze distribution of research work and to measure progress on equity and geographic spread of federal R&D subcontracting.
- University technology‑transfer and research offices: Those offices can use public listings to identify collaboration patterns, support grant narratives, and benchmark engagement with small‑business partners.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (SBIR/STTR program offices): Agencies must add data collection, storage, and publication capabilities, update award reporting templates, and absorb staffing or contractor costs to make information public in one year.
- Small business award recipients: Awardees must collect and report detailed subcontractor identification data; firms that view subcontractor identity as commercially sensitive may face compliance burdens and potential disclosure of strategic partner choices.
- SBA and program administrators: The SBA must redesign its public database and reconcile inputs from multiple agencies; absent dedicated funding, this creates implementation and ongoing maintenance costs and potential delays in uniform data quality.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between producing usable, auditable data to track who benefits from federal R&D (especially minority‑serving colleges and universities) and avoiding undue disclosure of commercially or nationally sensitive subcontracting relationships; the bill prioritizes public visibility but leaves the messy question of how to protect confidential, classified, or competitively sensitive details to agency implementation.
Transparency here is surgical: the bill prescribes which data points appear publicly but leaves format, verification, and privacy protections unspecified. That choice speeds passage but pushes hard implementation questions to agencies and the SBA — for example, whether agencies validate institutional classifications or accept self‑reported flags, how to handle name variants and campus‑versus‑system records, and whether subcontract dollar amounts or percentage of work must be disclosed (the bill does not require either).
These gaps matter because they determine how useful the published information will be for equitable‑participation analysis.
The statute also creates a tension between disclosure and commercial confidentiality. Publicly listing subcontracted research partners can aid accountability and showcase MSI engagement, yet it can expose competitively sensitive arrangements or reveal downstream commercialization plans.
The bill does not include carve‑outs for classified work, proprietary projects, or national security exceptions beyond existing agency authorities; agencies will need to reconcile transparency expectations with statutory obligations to protect sensitive information.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.