Amanda H. McDowell
Overview
Amanda focuses on litigating on behalf of government contractors. She advises clients facing high-stakes investigations and allegations initiated by the federal government or relators under the False Claims Act. Amanda also assists clients in affirmatively asserting claims against the government and helps strategize with clients defending against government-asserted claims concerning issues that arise in the course of contract performance. Her experience in federal procurement regulations enable her to guide clients through an array of procurement litigation disputes.
Career & Education
- The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2021
Public Contract Law Journal: editor-in-chief - University of Delaware, B.A., psychology and criminal justice, 2017
- The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2021
- Virginia
- District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Professional Activities and Memberships
- Vice-Chair, ABA Section of Public Contract Law, Young Lawyers Committee August 2023 - August 2024
- ABA Section of Public Contract Law
- American Health Law Association
Honors and Awards
- Full Section Diversity Scholarship 2022-2024, ABA Section of Public Contract Law
Amanda's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24
Representative Matters
- Representing government contractors in the defense and health care industries in FCA litigation and investigations initiated by whistleblowers and the government.
- Conducting internal investigations for private companies facing noncompliance and fraud allegations.
- Counseling government contractors on performance disputes and compliance issues, including potential terminations, overpayments, and cost accounting practices.
- Representing government contractors before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in litigation defending compliance with cost accounting practices.
- Representing businesses engaged in federal procurement before the Boards of Contract Appeals in affirmatively asserting claims against the government.
Amanda's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24
Insights
The False Claims Act: Compliance issues in US government procurement and healthcare
|08.07.24
Global Investigations Review
When Does Money Talk? ASBCA Says Claims With Financial Impact Not Automatically Monetary Claims
|06.20.23
Westlaw Today
- |
04.07.21
American Bar Association 50 Pub. Cont. L.J. 251
“What the Construction Industry Needs to Know About the Connecticut And Federal False Claims Acts”
|07.17.23
Client Training Presentation - "Compliance with Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act"
|07.06.23
Feature Comment: The Top FCA Developments Of 2016 For Government Contractors
|01.11.17
The Government Contractor
Amanda's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.25
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24
