NBA Accreditation 2025 Guide: NBA New SAR Format & GAPC v4 Explained

What is Changing in NBA Accreditation 2025?

The NBA has introduced updates that fundamentally reshape how engineering programs demonstrate quality. These changes are designed to ensure Indian graduates remain globally mobile and employable under the Washington Accord.

The Big Three Updates:

1. Revised SAR Format: This NBA SAR New Format introduce a restructured documentation system that demands more specific evidence regarding “Complex Engineering Problems” (WP) and “Complex Engineering Activities” (EA).
2. GAPC v4.0 (Washington Accord 2021 Alignment): The definitions of the 12 Program Outcomes (POs) have shifted. Sustainability and Ethics are no longer standalone silos; they are now woven into the fabric of Design, Investigation, and Analysis.
3. Strict Data Integration: Zero tolerance for discrepancies between SAR data and official records (AICTE/University/NIRF).

Critical Deadlines

• Tier-I Institutions (Autonomous): The NBA SAR new format is mandatory for all applications starting January 1, 2025.
• Tier-II Institutions (Affiliated): The new format is effective January 2025, with a transition window allowing the previous format until June 2025.

Understanding the NBA SAR New Format Structure: The 10 Criteria

Part A: Institutional Information

This is the foundation. It captures the “Scope” of your accreditation.

• Establishment Details: Must match AICTE records exactly.
• Student Intake: Discrepancies here are the #1 cause of pre-qualifier rejection.
• Faculty Strength: Headcounts must align with the Faculty-Student Ratio (FSR) claimed in Criterion 5.

Part B: The Criteria (Program & Institute Level)

NBA 10 criteria Explained.

Program-Level Criteria (Criteria 1–7)

Criterion 1: Vision, Mission, and Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)

• Focus: Alignment. Your Department Vision must flow from the Institute Vision.
• The Shift: PEOs are broadly defined career goals (3-5 years post-grad). You must prove you collected stakeholder feedback (Alumni, Industry) to draft these, rather than just copying them from a website.

Criterion 2: Program Curriculum and Teaching-Learning Processes

• Curriculum Gaps: For Tier-II colleges, identifying gaps between the University syllabus and Industry needs is crucial.
• Pedagogy: Move beyond “Chalk and Talk.” You need evidence of Complex Engineering Problem solving in the classroom.
• Quality of Experiments: Labs are assessed not just on equipment, but on the open-ended nature of experiments.

Criterion 3: Course Outcomes (COs) and Program Outcomes (POs)

• The Core Engine: This section validates your Outcome-Based Education (OBE) model.
• Mapping: Correlation levels (1, 2, 3) must be justified.
• Attainment: Institution must show the loop. If a CO target was missed, what specific action was taken?

Criterion 4: Students’ Performance

• Metrics: Success Index (SI), Academic Performance Index (API), and Placement data.
• Backlogs: Pay close attention to how you calculate graduation rates “without backlogs.”

Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions

• The Powerhouse: This carries significant weightage (typically 200 marks in Tier-I).
• Retention & Cadre Ratio: High faculty turnover is a major red flag.
• Research: Quality over quantity. Publications in SCI/Scopus indexed journals are prioritized over paid open-access journals.

Criterion 6: Facilities and Technical Support

• Correction: This is strictly regarding Laboratories and Classrooms, not general student support.
• Safety: Safety charts, fire extinguishers, and first aid in every lab are mandatory.
• Technical Staff: Qualifications of lab assistants are scrutinized here.

Criterion 7: Continuous Improvement

• The “Soul” of Accreditation: This is where most institutions fail.
• Requirement: You must demonstrate that PO/PSO attainment data from the previous 3 years was analyzed and led to specific changes (e.g., “We added a Python module because PO5 attainment was low in 2023”).

Institute-Level Criteria (Criteria 8–10)

Criterion 8: First Year Academics

• Often Overlooked: Since First Year is often centralized, departments forget to document it.
• FSR: The First Year Faculty-Student Ratio is calculated separately and is critical for qualifying.

Criterion 9: Student Support Systems

• Scope: Mentoring, grievance redressal, SC/ST cells, and extra-curriculars.
• Evidence: Mentor-mentee books showing actual guidance (not just signatures).

Criterion 10: Governance, Institutional Support, and Financial Resources

• Budgeting: Utilization of allocated funds for the specific program.
• Transparency: Governing Body minutes and service rules.

GAPC v4.0 Explained: The New Graduate Attributes (WA 2021)

The most significant intellectual NBA accreditation changes in the NBA Accreditation 2025 framework is the alignment with the Washington Accord 2021 (GAPC v4). While the labels (PO1, PO2…) often look the same, the definitions have changed to emphasize Sustainability and Digital Literacy across the board. Here is how the GAPC v4 engineering 12 Attributes have evolved:

1. Engineering Knowledge (PO1): Focus on fundamentals (Math, Science, Engineering) applied to Complex Engineering Problems.
2. Problem Analysis (PO2): Identify and formulate problems. Key Update: Must verify the holistic nature of the problem.
3. Design/Development of Solutions (PO3): Major Change. Solutions must not only meet needs but explicitly consider public health, safety, and cultural, societal, and environmental considerations (Sustainability is now intrinsic to Design).
4. Conduct Investigations (PO4): Use research methods, data analysis, and synthesis of information.
5. Modern Tool Usage (PO5): Usage of IT tools, prediction, and modeling.
6. The Engineer and Society (PO6): Assessing societal health, safety, and legal issues.
7. Environment and Sustainability (PO7): Understanding the impact of solutions in societal and environmental contexts.
8. Ethics (PO8): Key Update: Now explicitly includes “inclusive practice” and equity alongside professional ethics.
9. Individual and Team Work (PO9): Functioning effectively in diverse teams.
10. Communication (PO10): Comprehending and writing effective reports, including digital communication.
11. Project Management and Finance (PO11): Managing projects in multidisciplinary environments.
12. Lifelong Learning (PO12): Readiness for technological change.

Step-by-Step NBA SAR New Format Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: The Gap Analysis (6 Months Out)

• Data Audit: Download your AICTE portal data. Does it match your faculty rolls?
• OBE Calculation: Run a “dry run” of your CO-PO attainment for the last academic year. If your attainment is consistently 100% or 3.0, your targets are too low, and the NBA will flag this as “manipulated data.”

Phase 2: Documentation (4 Months Out)

• Course Files: Update course files to highlight “Complex Engineering Problems.” A standard assignment isn’t enough; you need open-ended problems that require synthesis of knowledge (PO1–PO4).
• Criteria Owners: Assign one senior faculty to “Own” Criterion 7 (Continuous Improvement) across the department.

Phase 3: The Pre-Qualifier (3 Months Out)

• NBA Tier-I and Tier-II have strict pre-qualifier scores. Ensure your Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) and Faculty Cadre Ratio satisfy the minimums (typically 1:20 or 1:25 depending on the tier/program).

Phase 4: Final Submission & Visit Prep

• Exhibits: Prepare physical exhibits. The “New NBA SAR 2025” requires evidence of Industry Involvement in curriculum (especially for autonomous colleges).
• Mock Visit: Conduct an internal audit where an external expert grills your faculty.

Critical Mistakes to Avoid (Based on Recent Rejections)

1. The “Generic PSOs” Trap: Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs) must be unique to your strength. Do not copy PSOs from a premier IIT if you are a Tier-II college with different strengths.
2. Missing “Action Taken Reports”: Calculating attainment is only 50% of the job. If you show a graph of PO attainment but cannot produce a document showing what you did to improve low attainment, you will lose marks in Criterion 7.
3. Inconsistent Finance Data: Your department budget utilization in NBA Criterion 10 must match the audited statement of the Institute.
4. Ignoring the “Complex Problem” Definition: In the New NBA SAR 2025 format, if your assignments are all “Define,” “Explain,” or “List,” you are not meeting GAPC v4 standards. You need “Design,” “Analyze,” and “Evaluate.”

Best Practices for the New NBA Accreditation 2025 Format

While understanding the criteria is essential, execution is where institutions succeed or fail. Based on the new rigor of the SAR, here are the operational best practices.

1. Mastering Part A: Data Integrity & Systems

The new NBA 2025 framework penalizes data discrepancies heavily.

• Centralize Your Data: Designate a dedicated accreditation cell. Do not rely on scattered spreadsheets.
• The “Single Source of Truth”: Implement a digital repository where faculty upload credentials once. This data must be cross-verified against your AICTE and University records before you start writing the SAR.
• Regular Validation: Establish a quarterly “Data Freeze” date where HODs verify student enrollment and faculty lists. This prevents the “last-minute compilation panic” that leads to errors.

2. Mastering Part B: Demonstrating OBE & GAPC v4

To score high in Criterion 2 and 3, your documentation must be visual and evidence-based.

• Visual Attainment Analysis: Don’t just show numbers. Use trend graphs to show PO attainment over 3 years. If the graph goes up, explain why (e.g., “Introduction of new lab equipment”).
• Rubrics for Complex Problems: For GAPC v4 compliance, your assessment tools must have detailed rubrics. Show exactly how you grade a “Complex Engineering Problem” versus a standard question.
• The “Golden” Course File: Maintain sample student work (High, Medium, and Low scorers) for every assignment. This is the first thing the Peer Team will ask for.

---

Conclusion: Turning Compliance into Excellence

The NBA Accreditation 2025 framework is not designed to be a barrier, but a bridge to global recognition. By moving away from rote documentation and toward genuine, data-driven improvement and sustainable design, your institution ensures its graduates are future-ready. Next Steps for Coordinators:

1. Download the January 2025 SAR Format immediately from the official NBA website.
2. Convene a meeting to review your Criterion 3 (CO-PO Mapping) against the new GAPC v4 definitions.
3. Start your data cleaning process today.

The Role of Technology

Manual documentation is the enemy of the new detailed NBA SAR New format. Digital transformation through specialized platforms like Kramah Ki-NBA Software eliminates the manual inefficiencies that plague accreditation. Tools like Kramah do not just store files; they automate the complex CO-PO calculations, ensure data consistency across the institution, and generate the required reports with a single click. By automating the “drudgery” of compliance, your faculty can focus on what matters most: teaching. Final Thought View the 2025 accreditation cycle not as a regulatory burden, but as a strategic audit. With the right roadmap, the right mindset, and the right technological support, your institution can achieve accreditation status that genuinely reflects your commitment to excellence.