Government relations and strategic communications for biotech, health technology, dual-use, and defense businesses navigating the Maryland–Washington corridor. We organize policy evidence, stakeholder priorities, ownership and supply-chain context, and counsel-reviewed engagement materials around a specific decision. Scientific validity, regulatory submissions, and procurement eligibility stay with the appropriate specialists.
Initial conflict and scope review within one business day; the first 72-hour plan follows the agreed facts, counsel availability, and deadline.
Run private triageThe corridor contains different decision systems: NIH in Bethesda, FDA at White Oak in Silver Spring, federal agencies and Congress in Washington, and Maryland state institutions. Physical proximity does not create a shared approval process. We turn a broad ambition such as “reach Washington” into a defined policy question, responsible authority, evidence gap, decision calendar, and lawful engagement plan. The first brief identifies what is a federal policy matter, what belongs to a regulator or contracting office, and what requires state-level work.
The exact scope follows the facts, jurisdiction, counsel guidance, and deadline. These are practical working materials, not generic thought leadership.
A map separating NIH research interests, FDA regulatory pathways, federal procurement, congressional policy, and Maryland state responsibilities. Each entry records public authority, relevance, permitted channel, and the client evidence needed before contact.
A concise problem statement, affected provision or policy, operational evidence, alternatives, and a requested action. Technical and clinical claims remain attributed to qualified sources; draft language is reviewed by the client’s scientific and legal owners.
An indexed record of ownership, governance, suppliers, funding, and publicly reported concerns for counsel review. BIOSECURE, CFIUS, export controls, outbound investment, and procurement restrictions are assessed separately rather than combined into a single label of compliance.
Executive Q&A, meeting objectives, fact sheets, disclosure checks, stakeholder sequence, and an approval log. The pack distinguishes a request for policy dialogue from a regulated submission, procurement communication, grant application, or clinical representation.
Initial conflict and scope review within one business day; the first 72-hour plan follows the agreed facts, counsel availability, and deadline.
Confirm the business entity, technology, federal and Maryland nexus, commercial objective, deadline, and existing counsel. Identify whether sensitive health, export-controlled, proprietary, or personal data should stay outside an initial communications review.
Check the current official policy or rule, responsible office, public calendar, relevant filings, and evidence supporting the proposed position. Record uncertainty, proposed-versus-final status, and matters requiring specialist counsel or a scientific reviewer.
Deliver an authority map, first policy brief, unresolved questions, and a sequenced plan. Counsel determines applicable LDA, FARA, procurement, ethics, or other obligations before covered outreach begins; 72 hours is a preparation milestone, not an agency deadline.
Prepare approved briefings and lawful stakeholder engagement within scope. Measure completed materials, substantive questions, documented responses, and changes in the policy record. Log registration and reporting tasks and update the plan when the law or transaction changes.
These are typical scopes to confirm in an engagement agreement. An agency, law firm, technical specialist, and public affairs team can work together; the right lead depends on the decision and evidence required.
| Provider | Primary role | Typical output | Boundary to confirm |
|---|---|---|---|
| PR / communications agency | Audience messaging and media relations | Media plan, statements, outreach materials | Legal and technical conclusions need specialist review |
| Law firm / regulatory counsel | Legal analysis, representation, applicable filings | Legal opinion, filing, procedural strategy | Public communications and stakeholder execution require an agreed scope |
| Technical / scientific specialist | Validate technical and scientific evidence | Expert assessment, technical documentation | Policy engagement and media response are separate responsibilities |
| SIC Group public affairs | Evidence coordination, policy context, stakeholder and reputation strategy | Decision brief, source index, Q&A, engagement plan | No legal representation or guaranteed external decision |
Choose the closest facts. Nothing is sent until you continue to the confidential intake form.
Confirm the business entity, technology, federal and Maryland nexus, commercial objective, deadline, and existing counsel. Identify whether sensitive health, export-controlled, proprietary, or personal data should stay outside an initial communications review.
No. We support public affairs and evidence-based communications. Regulatory counsel and the appropriate technical specialists determine submission strategy, scientific claims, and regulatory requirements. A public affairs meeting does not substitute for FDA review.
No award or funding decision is guaranteed. We can clarify public priorities, prepare a factual policy narrative, and organize stakeholder materials. Grant and procurement applications follow their own rules and authorized channels.
No. The review starts with a real operational or policy nexus, such as Maryland employees, research, manufacturing, partnerships, or exposure to federal decisions. We do not invent a local address, jobs, partnerships, or economic impact.
They require separate counsel-led checks. A CFIUS transaction issue, procurement restriction, export-control question, FARA obligation, and outbound investment rule have different triggers. Proposed rules are labeled as proposed and cannot be treated as final prohibitions.
A short non-sensitive description of the entity, ownership jurisdictions, technology, policy problem, decision deadline, and current advisers. Detailed health, technical, or confidential records are shared only after conflict review and an appropriate channel are agreed.
SIC Group provides strategic communications and public affairs support. Legal, regulatory, scientific, clinical, and procurement conclusions require the appropriate qualified professionals. No meeting, agency decision, award, approval, removal, ranking, or AI citation is guaranteed.