I think that would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. What exactly did they "demonstrate"?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32675.msg1202647#msg1202647

has a file with pics of some of the parts they manufactured.

Thanks for that. The stator and preburner assemblies are CAD models, not fabricated hardware.
Stator vanes are easy to manufacture. I was doing that for P&W engines in the 1970's.
The other 6 items are extremely simple basic shapes that could be milled in a garage.
I see nothing there of any difficulty.
Where's the turbine generator?
Where's the fuel injector?
Where are *any* of the parts that make the RD-180 so unique?

If they had actually made those instead of these non-discript and simple parts then I would have more confidence.
Did they build anything of any difficulty?
Did they duplicate any of the metallurgy that was so unique to the engine?
Did they document any of the assembly specifications?
How much torque was used for bolting assemblies together, and which assemblies?
What was the surface finish value of mating surfaces?

Making more than 1,000 CAD models proves only that the designer can operate CAD software.
Do the CAD models fit together properly? Do those models faithfully duplicate the actual parts? Are the tolerances invoked consistent with the Russian standards? Are there proper geometric constraints on any of them or are these simply surface volumes? What kind of GD&T was invoked? How were the fluid boundaries handled? Were the design disciplines properly integrated, and to what protocols?

I don't know the answer to these, but rolling out such simple-to-make pieces is not proof of the ability to duplicate the engine. That's why I said that I think it would depend on just what "we have demonstrated that we can build this engine" actually means. So far I remain unimpressed because I could have manufactured everything I see there myself in my uncles old machine shop. A pile of simple parts does not an engine make.