The Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery method has historically been the most popular and the most effective means of determining the least cost for building a project based upon a set of construction documents. In recent years, however, other project delivery methods, including but limited to Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) and Design/Build (DB), have slowly taken a share of the construction market away from the DBB delivery method. The choice of delivery method that will produce the best value for an owner in the measurements of efficiency in quality, cost, and timeliness depends upon the type of project and the business culture of the project owner. A unique opportunity for a comparative study was presented by the Meetinghouse Facilities Department (MFD) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The MFD completed over 200 repetitive meetinghouse projects in the U.S. over a five-year period (1999-2003), contracting approximately two-thirds of the projects using a CM/GC delivery method with an attached partnering agreement. The remaining meetinghouses were contracted using a DBB delivery method. A comprehensive comparison was conducted measuring all of the efficiencies created by the selection of delivery method, including short- and long-term costs, direct and indirect costs, construction cycle time, and quality assessment scores. After identifying and then adjusting for several confounding variables in the historical data, the statistical analysis provided evidence that the CM/GC delivery method proved to be the best value for the MFD by producing a total cost savings of over 5.5 percent on the meetinghouse projects when compared to the DBB meetinghouse projects. Construction cycle time was 20% shorter on the CM/GC meetinghouse projects and quality assessment (QA) scores were consistently higher. In regards to a 10-year life cycle repair costs, the CM/GC delivery method produced a higher quality meetinghouse, reducing repair costs by 34% when compared to the DBB meetinghouse projects.