Case Citator › Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United States

Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
930 F.2d 872
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1995
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Dawco Construction, Inc. v. United States was overruled in part: a contractor's nonroutine payment claim under the Contract Disputes Act need not be disputed before it is submitted to the contracting officer. Courts continue to apply Dawco's separate rules on claim submission and proof of damages.
More on how this was screened

All 33 flagged citations have been read. The confirmed adverse treatment is listed below. The District of Columbia's different approach to damages under its own government contract law is also described below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United States; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Federal Circuit sitting en banc overruled Dawco's requirement that a nonroutine payment demand already be disputed before it can be a Contract Disputes Act claim.

    Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton · Federal Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We hold that properly construed for its plain meaning, the language of FAR 33.201 does not require that a payment demand contained in a purported CDA claim be in dispute before being submitted for decision to the CO unless that demand is a “voucher, invoice or other routine request for payment.” To the extent that Dawco and cases relying on Dawco can be read to suggest otherwise, they are overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace