The bill directs the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to enter into one or more memoranda of understanding (or similar agreements) to carry out cross-cutting, collaborative research and development activities that advance both agencies’ missions. Those agreements must ensure the inclusion of small business concerns (as defined in 15 U.S.C. 632), may use reimbursable arrangements, and may involve other federal agencies where appropriate.
The law requires a single report to Congress within two years summarizing coordination, technical opportunities, collaborative achievements, and plans for continued coordination. It also requires that these activities be conducted consistent with the research-security provisions in subtitle D of title VI of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.) and specifies that no additional appropriations are authorized to implement the Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the DOE Secretary and SBA Administrator to adopt one or more memoranda or agreements to run joint R&D activities, explicitly include small businesses, and permits use of reimbursable agreements and interagency collaboration. It mandates a statutory report to Congress within two years and ties activity to existing research-security rules.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DOE program offices, SBA leadership and its small business clients (as defined under 15 U.S.C. 632), national labs and any federal agencies that join via collaboration, and contractors or partners engaged under reimbursable agreements.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal channel to connect DOE technical assets and mission needs with SBA’s small-business outreach and commercialization pathways, potentially accelerating energy innovation pathways for small firms — but it does so without new appropriations and with explicit research-security constraints.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act is short and narrowly focused: it tells the Secretary of Energy and the SBA Administrator to formalize cooperative research and development activities through memoranda of understanding or similar agreements. The statute leaves the content of those agreements to the covered officials, but it requires that small business concerns be included and permits the agencies to structure reimbursable agreements and bring other federal partners into projects.
Operationally, the law creates a framework rather than operational detail. It contemplates multiple agreements if the parties choose, and it explicitly authorizes cost-recovery or reimbursable arrangements to fund joint work—so collaboration can be funded through interagency billing or third-party reimbursements rather than new line-item appropriations.
The Act does not create new grant or procurement authorities; instead, it organizes how existing authorities and relationships are coordinated.The statute imposes two procedural constraints that will shape implementation. First, it requires the covered officials to produce a single report to Congress within two years, describing coordination efforts, technical-expansion opportunities, achievements, areas for future success, and plans to continue coordination.
Second, it requires that all activities conform to the research-security standards found in subtitle D of title VI of Public Law 117–167 (42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.), which govern foreign interference, disclosure, and related safeguards in federally funded research.Finally, the Act expressly contains a Cutgo-style funding limitation: it authorizes no additional appropriations. Agencies must therefore implement this new coordination through existing budgets or reimbursable mechanisms, which will influence the scale and pace of any joint activities and force trade-offs at the program level.
The statute is a mandate to coordinate and report, not a source of new program funding or detailed operational guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of Energy and the SBA Administrator to enter into one or more memoranda of understanding or similar agreements to carry out joint R&D activities.
Those agreements must ensure the inclusion of small business concerns as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
The covered officials may use reimbursable agreements and may bring other federal agencies into collaborative activities to maximize R&D effectiveness.
The covered officials must submit a report to Congress within two years covering coordination, potential technical-capability expansions, collaborative achievements, future opportunity areas, and plans to continue coordination.
All activities must be consistent with the research-security provisions in subtitle D of title VI of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.), and the Act authorizes no additional appropriations to implement it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the statute the "DOE and SBA Research Act." This is purely clerical but is the header for the responsibilities that follow.
Mandate for DOE–SBA joint R&D agreements
Directs the Secretary of Energy and the SBA Administrator (the "covered officials") to enter into memoranda of understanding or other appropriate agreements to carry out cross-cutting collaborative research and development activities. Practically, this creates a legal obligation to formalize cooperation but leaves the design, scope, and timelines of projects to the agencies themselves.
Flexibility on number and form of agreements
Permits the covered officials to execute one or more memoranda or other appropriate agreements as jointly determined. This flexibility lets the agencies tailor arrangements to different program areas (for example, separate MOUs for clean energy, grid modernization, or commercialization activities) rather than forcing a single all-purpose agreement.
Requirement to include small business concerns
Requires the agencies to ensure the inclusion of small business concerns (per 15 U.S.C. 632) in collaborative activities "as appropriate." That language obliges the agencies to prioritize participation by eligible small firms but leaves the degree and mechanism of inclusion to implementation choices in the MOUs.
Authority to use reimbursable agreements and other agencies
Allows the agencies to carry out reimbursable agreements among DOE, SBA, and appropriate entities and to collaborate with other Federal agencies. This provides a funding/administration pathway without new appropriations, enabling cost-sharing, fee-for-service work, or interagency billing to support joint projects.
Two-year reporting requirement on activities and outcomes
Mandates a report to Congress not later than two years after enactment that must address coordination among covered officials, opportunities to expand technical capabilities, collaborative research achievements, future mutually beneficial areas, and the continuation of coordination. The report serves as the primary statutory oversight and evaluation mechanism.
Requirement to apply statutory research-security standards
Requires that activities be applied in a manner consistent with subtitle D of title VI of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (Public Law 117–167; 42 U.S.C. 19231 et seq.). That ties the collaborations to the federal research-security regime addressing foreign influence and related risks; implementation will require vetting and compliance measures consistent with those provisions.
No new appropriations (Cutgo compliance)
Specifies that the Act authorizes no additional amounts to carry out the statute or its amendments. Agencies must therefore implement the mandated coordination through existing funds or reimbursable mechanisms, which will shape the scale and design of joint R&D projects.
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
- Small business energy innovators — the statute requires active inclusion of small business concerns, creating a formal channel to access DOE technical programs, partnership opportunities, and potentially commercialization pathways.
- SBA — gains a formalized role connecting small firms to DOE technical capabilities, strengthening SBA’s mission to help small businesses scale in technology-intensive sectors.
- DOE program offices and national labs — obtain a structured route to engage small businesses and leverage SBA’s network for commercialization, potentially increasing technology transition and market uptake.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Energy and Small Business Administration budgets and program managers — because the Act authorizes no new appropriations, implementation will require reallocating staff time and existing resources or relying on reimbursable mechanisms.
- Federal partners and agencies that join collaborative projects — will likely need to provide staff and comply with research-security vetting, adding administrative overhead.
- Small businesses participating in projects — while beneficiaries, they may face additional compliance and security screening under the research-security standards, which can impose time and administrative costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating small-business-led energy innovation through DOE–SBA coordination and the twin constraints of research-security obligations and zero new funding: promoting open, rapid collaboration and commercialization often conflicts with the need for rigorous security vetting and the reality that agencies must find money and staff inside existing budgets.
The Act creates a coordination duty but leaves almost all operational detail to agency implementation. The text gives the covered officials flexibility on the number, scope, and content of agreements while requiring small-business inclusion and consistency with federal research-security rules.
That design keeps the statute administrable but forces agencies to resolve key implementation questions in the MOUs: how to allocate costs, how to prioritize projects, how to measure "inclusion," and how to reconcile security vetting with rapid commercialization.
A critical practical constraint is the funding restriction. By forbidding additional appropriations, the law channels agencies toward reimbursable work or internal trade-offs.
That can limit the quantity and pace of joint projects and create internal competition for scarce program dollars. Separately, anchoring implementation to subtitle D of title VI of the R&D Act imports significant research-security requirements; complying with those rules may materially slow collaborations, increase participant vetting, and raise administrative burdens, particularly for small firms unaccustomed to federal security processes.
Several implementation ambiguities also matter: the statute does not define success metrics or require regular public updates beyond the single two-year report, it does not prescribe how IP, data rights, or procurement authorities will be handled in joint projects, and it leaves open which reimbursable mechanisms will be used. Agencies will need to resolve these through the MOUs, which means outcomes will depend heavily on interagency negotiation rather than statutory prescription.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.