This research addresses legislative impediments inherent to working in the government construction industry by investigating whether benefits exist when using alternative project delivery methods, and whether legislative limitations allowing the use of alternative project delivery methods impede any such benefits from being realized. The research begins by defining the project delivery method process, and explains in detail the four primary types and how they function. The research then provides a qualitative study that presents the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each method. Then, a second literature review provides an overview of previously published research in project delivery method selection, and examines federal and state legislative trends to establish the growing debate associated with alternative project delivery methods, focusing on the design-build method of project delivery. Finally, a quantitative analysis is presented to test whether federal and state legislative limitations influence the realization of any benefits of alternative project delivery methods, and specifically design-build, for federal projects. Project characteristics from the U.S. General Services Administration Capital Construction Project database are tested. The research suggests that when an alternative project delivery method, specifically design-build, is chosen, there are benefits in time and cost savings, and the ability to use the alternative project delivery method is affected by the removal of federal and state legislative impediments.