Integrated project delivery (IPD) has proven an effective delivery system in the private sector as evidenced in recently completed case study projects. Despite this success, case study researchers assert IPD currently is not being used in the public sector because of state laws limiting the delivery systems available for public owners and the difficulty of changing these laws. This paper examines a set of building construction projects undertaken by one public owner over a 12-year period, specifically the change orders associated with these design-bid-build projects. The authors analyze these change orders to determine whether this owner could have realized the same benefit as private owners if IPD had been available as a delivery method. The authors hypothesize that owners often use change orders to ensure their own satisfaction postdesign because the design intent does not match their specific requirements (i.e., owner requested changes), and the collaborative nature of IPD would lower the need for such changes significantly, providing added value to the owner because of a more complete project scope being determined earlier and with contractor input during the design phase. This paper presents data to support these hypotheses illustrating the benefits of IPD for public owners, and in turn, building a compelling case for adopting IPD in the public sector.