Ranking systems are readily available and offer a simplistic way to differentiate among universities. However, end-users are not informed about the criteria and methods used to develop the ranking systems. Whereas ranking systems are used by prospective students, their lack of reliability and transparency outweigh their benefits. There are a few reliable ranking systems of institutions and some disciplines, but there is no reliable ranking system for construction higher education programs. This study proposes a rating, instead of a ranking system, to better illustrate the comparative excellence of a program, rather than simply providing an ordinal scale. This study focused on creating the framework for rating construction programs through the lens of faculty and administrators. Specifically, the study sought to identify appropriate criteria for rating construction programs and to find consensus among administrators concerning the criteria. An initial list of 200 criteria were gathered from three sources before applying parameters of: measurability, triangulation, and saturation that consolidated it to 21. Then, a modified Delphi method was used to objectively create a consensus for 11 criteria that should serve as a framework for rating the excellence of construction programs.