1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Amanda H. McDowell

Amanda H. McDowell

Associate | She/Her/Hers
Associate | She/Her/Hers
YW1jZG93ZWxsQGNyb3dlbGwuY29t
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

Amanda specializes in 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 expertise in federal procurement regulations enable her to guide clients through an array of procurement litigation disputes.

Amanda is an associate in the Government Contracts Group based in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office focusing on False Claims Act litigation, government investigations, claims and disputes litigation, and state and federal regulatory compliance.

Her experience includes:

  • Counseling and strategizing with government contractors on performance disputes and compliance issues, including potential terminations, overpayments, requests for equitable adjustments, claims, contract changes, and allegations of noncompliance with various contract requirements and cost accounting practices;
  • Representing government contractors before the Boards of Contract Appeals in litigation both defending against Government-asserted claims and affirmatively asserting claims against the Government;
  • Advising clients on cost accounting practices, internal compliance policies and procedures, and litigation strategies that impact business decisions;
  • Representing government contractors in the defense industry in False Claims Act litigation and investigations initiated by whistleblowers and the Government.

Amanda also maintains an active pro bono practice representing survivors of domestic violence.  She regularly assists clients seeking civil protective orders in abusive situations and has also represented clients seeking legal immigration status under the Violence Against Women Act.

While in law school, Amanda was the editor-in-chief of the Public Contract Law Journal and a member of the Moot Court Board, Mock Trial Board, and Alternative Dispute Resolution Board.  Amanda was a finalist and the highest-scoring competitor in the 2020 Government Contracts Moot Court Competition and served as chair for the 2021 competition.  She was also a recipient of the Roger N. Boyd Memorial Scholarship, the 2020 National Association of State Procurement Officials Academic Scholarship, and the 2021 National Contract Management Outstanding Academic Achievement Award, all recognizing her academic success in government procurement while at GW Law.  Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Amanda interned with the World Bank’s Office of Suspension and Debarment and for the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Career & Education

|

    • University of Delaware, B.A., psychology and criminal justice, 2017
    • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2021
    • 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
    • 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

    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 | 5 min read | 10.08.24

In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator....

View All Insights

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 | 5 min read | 10.08.24

In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.08.24

In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.12.24

The Global Investigations Review Guide to Compliance

Publication | 08.07.24

The False Claims Act: Compliance issues in US government procurement and healthcare

Firm News | 2 min read | 06.11.24

Crowell Secures $131 Million Trial Win for Lockheed Martin in C-5 Aircraft Case
|

View All Insights

Practices

Amanda's Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.08.24

In the Upside Down: District Court Upends Decades of False Claims Act Precedent in Declaring Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator....

View All Insights