The Revised NBA SAR 2025 is the new Self-Assessment Report format aligned with GAPC v4.0 (Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Version 4.0), itself an alignment with the Washington Accord 2021 Review. It became mandatory for Tier I (autonomous) engineering programmes from 1 January 2025 and for Tier II (affiliated) programmes from January 2025 with a transition window until June 2025. The new format covers 10 criteria totalling 1000 marks, the redefined 11 Programme Outcomes, Complex Engineering Problems (WP) and Activities (EA) evidence, Action Taken Reports, Industry-Institute Partnership documentation, and a fundamental shift from documentation-focused to outcome-based evaluation.
In short: The Revised NBA SAR 2025 is operationally different from anything programmes submitted before. Sustainability is woven into Design and Analysis rather than being a standalone PO. Complex Engineering Problems (WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA) require explicit per-course mapping. Action Taken Reports under Criterion 7 require 3-year traceability from PO/PSO attainment data to actual curriculum changes. Industry-Institute Partnership documentation is now accreditation-relevant evidence, not nice-to-have. Research quality (SCI/Scopus) matters more than publication count, and faculty retention is scrutinised under Criterion 5 (the highest-weight criterion at 200 marks). Five recurring pre-qualifier rejection patterns exist — we cover all of them below.
The SAR 2025 transition timeline
| Date | Event | Operational impact |
|---|---|---|
| July 2024 | NBA introduces revised SAR format for Tier I (initial rollout) | Tier I autonomous programmes begin preparing under new format |
| 1 January 2025 | New SAR format mandatory for Tier I engineering programmes | All Tier I submissions from this date use Revised SAR 2025 |
| January 2025 | New SAR format also rolled out for Tier II engineering programmes | Tier II programmes can begin submitting under new format |
| Through June 2025 | Transition window for Tier II programmes | Tier II programmes may submit under either old or new format during this window only |
| 1 July 2025 onwards | Transition window closed | All NBA submissions across Tier I and Tier II use Revised SAR 2025 exclusively |
| 2026 onwards (current) | Full operational rollout across the NBA accreditation pipeline | Programmes accrediting and re-accrediting in 2026 and beyond use the Revised SAR 2025 |
SAR structure: Part A and Part B
The SAR is structured in two parts. Part A captures institutional context; Part B is the criteria-based assessment that drives the 1000-mark score.
Part A — Institutional Information
The institutional and programme context. Not scored directly — sets the scope of assessment.
- Institutional profile and history
- Programme being accredited (specific engineering discipline)
- Statutory approvals (AICTE, UGC, affiliating university)
- AISHE code (mandatory)
- Contact details and authorised signatories
- NBA Coordinator designation (the named coordinator for this submission)
- Departmental information for the programme being accredited
Part B — Criteria Summary + Programme Level Criteria
The scored portion. 10 criteria totalling 1000 marks, structured in two layers.
- Programme Level Criteria (Criteria 1-7) assessed at the engineering programme being accredited:
- 1. Vision, Mission and PEOs
- 2. Programme Curriculum and Teaching-Learning Processes
- 3. Course Outcomes and Programme Outcomes
- 4. Students’ Performance
- 5. Faculty Information and Contributions
- 6. Facilities and Technical Support
- 7. Continuous Improvement
- Institute Level Criteria (Criteria 8-10) assessed at the institution as a whole:
- 8. First Year Academics
- 9. Student Support Systems
- 10. Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources
Why the programme vs institute split matters: Programme-level criteria are specific to the engineering discipline being accredited. An institution accrediting Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Civil Engineering submits three separate SARs — each with its own Criteria 1-7 evidence — but Criteria 8-10 (institute level) appear identically across all three. This means the institute-level evidence (First Year Academics, Student Support, Governance) is built once and reused; the programme-level evidence is built per discipline.
Tier I vs Tier II SAR: where the weightages differ
The 10 criteria and 1000 total marks are identical between Tier I and Tier II. What differs is how marks are distributed across criteria — reflecting the operational autonomy differences between autonomous and affiliated programmes.
| Criterion | Tier I marks | Tier II marks | Why the difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Vision, Mission, PEOs | 50 | 60 | Tier II programmes have less curriculum control — PEO clarity matters more |
| 2. Curriculum & Teaching-Learning | 100 | 120 | Affiliated curriculum is fixed; how well a programme delivers within it matters more |
| 3. COs & POs | 175 | 120 | The biggest gap. Tier I expects mature OBE implementation given full curriculum autonomy |
| 4. Students’ Performance | 100 | 150 | Tier II compensates with higher weight on demonstrable student outcomes |
| 5. Faculty Information | 200 | 200 | Identical — faculty matters equally in both tiers |
| 6. Facilities & Technical Support | 80 | 80 | Identical — infrastructure expectations are the same |
| 7. Continuous Improvement | 75 | 50 | Second-largest gap. Tier I expects mature CQI discipline as the operational basis for autonomy |
| 8. First Year Academics | 50 | 50 | Identical — foundation year quality is institute-level |
| 9. Student Support | 50 | 50 | Identical |
| 10. Governance & Financial | 120 | 120 | Identical |
| Total | 1000 | 1000 | Same total, different distribution |
The seven operational shifts in Revised SAR 2025
Beyond the 12-to-11 PO change covered in the NBA GAPC v4.0 Complete Guide, the Revised SAR 2025 introduces seven operational shifts that change how SARs are built. Each is non-trivial — institutions accustomed to the previous format will need to redesign evidence collection.
1. Sustainability woven into Design, Investigation, Analysis
Sustainability is no longer a standalone PO. Every design exercise must demonstrably consider environmental, societal, and cultural impact. SAR evidence must show explicit sustainability integration in coursework, capstone projects, and assessment rubrics — not a single elective course.
2. Complex Engineering Problems (WP) specific evidence
WP — the “Range of Complex Engineering Problems” (7 sub-attributes WP1-WP7) — includes depth of analysis, conflicting requirements, depth of knowledge, familiarity of issues, applicable codes, stakeholder involvement, subsystem interdependence. Programmes must map specific WP sub-attributes to specific courses — e.g., “Course CS401 Operating Systems addresses WP1, WP3, WP5 via the kernel-design lab assignments.”
3. Complex Engineering Activities (EA) specific evidence
EA — the “Range of Complex Engineering Activities” (5 sub-attributes EA1-EA5) — includes range of resources, level of interactions, consequences to society and environment, familiarity, judgment. Capstone projects, internships, and research electives are the primary evidence vehicles. Activity logbooks, mentor assessments, and impact narratives required.
4. Reduced formulaic attainment, more assessment quality
NBA recognised that institutions were gaming attainment by aligning course objectives with POs without demonstrating real-world learning impact. The new format reduces weightage on formulaic attainment calculations and adds weight on assessment process quality — diverse methods like projects, case studies, hands-on lab, industry-driven assignments.
5. Action Taken Reports under Criterion 7 (3-year traceability)
Calculating attainment is only 50% of the job. Demonstrating that the data drove decisions is the other 50%. Three-year trends with documented curriculum revisions — not just attainment graphs — are now expected evidence.
6. Industry-Institute Partnership documentation
Live projects with industrial partners, industry mentor engagement, project funding records, placement traceability to specific partners. The shift reflects NBA’s view that programmes must produce industry-ready graduates with demonstrable workplace exposure — especially Tier I.
7. Research quality over quantity
Criterion 5 (200 marks, the highest single weight) applies quality-over-quantity scrutiny. SCI/Scopus-indexed journals prioritised over paid open-access. Faculty retention and cadre ratio scrutinised — high turnover and under-cadre departments are red flags.
The five recurring pre-qualifier rejection patterns
NBA expert teams cross-check every SAR claim against on-site evidence during the visit. SAR-evidence misalignment is the largest cause of accreditation failure. Five rejection patterns recur across institutions of all tiers and disciplines — identifying these in your own SAR before submission is the single highest-leverage pre-submission audit you can do.
1Inconsistencies between SAR sections
The same data appears differently in Criterion 3 (COs/POs) vs Criterion 5 (Faculty) vs Annexures. Faculty headcount in one place, faculty list in another, faculty cadre table in a third — numbers don’t match. Student strength varies by section. NBA expert teams notice immediately. Internal SAR audit before submission must cross-validate every numeric claim across all sections.
2Missing Action Taken Reports
Programmes show 3-year attainment graphs but cannot demonstrate the corresponding curriculum changes that were triggered. The graph shows PO5 attainment trending up, but no record exists of the specific curriculum revision that drove the improvement. Under the new SAR 2025, this is a Criterion 7 failure — CQI maturity requires documented intervention, not just observed improvement.
3Generic Complex Engineering Problems claims
Programmes describe coursework but don’t map specific WP and EA dimensions to specific courses. A statement like "Our curriculum addresses complex engineering problems through capstone projects" is no longer adequate. NBA expects: which courses, which projects, which WP dimensions, with assessment rubrics that explicitly evaluate complexity.
4Industry-Institute Partnership gaps
Institutions claim industry collaboration but lack live project records, signed MoUs, mentor engagement logs, or project funding evidence. Handshake collaborations that produced a guest lecture or two don’t survive expert team scrutiny under the new format. Documentation must be auditable — with dates, signatures, deliverables, and outcomes.
5Faculty retention and cadre ratio red flags
Criterion 5 carries the highest single weight at 200 marks — equal across Tier I and Tier II. High faculty turnover (often 30%+ year-over-year in some private institutions), under-cadre departments (insufficient Professors / Associate Professors per the AICTE norm), or improperly designated qualifications all surface here. Faculty quality and stability are scrutinised more than the previous format.
Pre-SAR readiness checklist
Use this checklist 6-9 months before SAR submission. Each item directly addresses one of the operational shifts above. The checklist is the same for Tier I and Tier II — the weightages differ; the readiness requirements don’t.
- OBE engine functional: PEOs defined with stakeholder involvement, 11 POs adopted under GAPC v4.0, PSOs defined for the programme, all COs mapped to POs and PSOs using Bloom’s Taxonomy logic, attainment computation (direct and indirect) running for last 3 years.
- Sustainability evidence assembled: Specific courses and capstone projects identified that demonstrate sustainability integration in design (PO3), investigation (PO4), and analysis (PO2). Assessment rubrics explicitly evaluate sustainability considerations.
- WP / EA mapping documented: Spreadsheet matrix showing which courses address which Washington Accord Problem dimensions and Activity dimensions. Per-course evidence (lab assignments, projects, exam questions) demonstrating complexity.
- 3-year Action Taken Reports prepared: For Criterion 7, narrative documents per PO showing attainment trends → analysis → specific curriculum changes → outcome of changes. At minimum, one ATR per PO showing a complete cycle.
- Industry-Institute Partnership pack ready: Signed MoUs, list of live projects with industry partners, mentor MoUs and session logs, project funding records, placement outcomes traceable to specific industry partners. Aim for 5-10 documented partnerships minimum.
- Faculty research audit complete: Publication list categorised by SCI/Scopus indexing vs paid open-access. Citation counts verified. Faculty retention rate calculated (target: turnover under 15% year-over-year). Cadre ratio verified against AICTE norms.
- SAR internal consistency audit run: Every numeric claim cross-validated across sections. Faculty count, student strength, lab equipment counts, budget figures — all reconcile. Annexures match main SAR.
- Mock expert team visit: An external accreditation advisor walks the institution as the NBA expert team would, identifies SAR-vs-reality gaps, flags issues for correction before formal submission.
The expert team visit perspective: NBA expert team members are typically senior academics from peer institutions with deep familiarity with the SAR criteria. They’ve seen hundreds of SARs and immediately identify boilerplate language, inconsistencies, and missing evidence. The team will spend 2-3 days on-site cross-checking your SAR claims. Your SAR’s job is to make their visit boring — everything you claim should be visible, verifiable, and exactly as described.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Revised NBA SAR 2025 format?
The Revised NBA SAR 2025 is the new Self-Assessment Report format aligned with GAPC v4.0 (Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Version 4.0) — itself an alignment with the Washington Accord 2021 Review. It became mandatory for Tier I (autonomous) engineering programmes from 1 January 2025 and for Tier II (affiliated) programmes from January 2025 with a transition window until June 2025. The new format covers 10 criteria totalling 1000 marks, the redefined 11 Programme Outcomes (down from 12), Complex Engineering Problems (WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA) evidence requirements, Action Taken Reports under Criterion 7, Industry-Institute Partnership documentation, and assessment quality over formulaic attainment calculations.
What is the structure of the NBA SAR?
The SAR has two main parts. Part A — Institutional Information: institutional profile, programme being accredited, statutory approvals, AISHE code, contact details, NBA coordinator designation. Part B — Criteria Summary plus Programme Level Criteria 1-10. Programme Level Criteria (Criteria 1-7): Vision/Mission/PEOs (50 marks Tier I, 60 Tier II), Curriculum & Teaching-Learning (100/120), COs and POs (175/120), Students’ Performance (100/150), Faculty Information (200/200), Facilities (80/80), Continuous Improvement (75/50). Institute Level Criteria (Criteria 8-10): First Year Academics (50/50), Student Support Systems (50/50), Governance (120/120). Total: 1000 marks in both tiers.
What is the key difference between Tier I and Tier II SAR?
The criteria structure and total marks (1000) are identical, but weightages differ. Tier I weights Criterion 3 (COs and POs) at 175 marks — reflecting the expectation that autonomous programmes demonstrate mature OBE implementation. Tier II weights Criterion 3 at 120 marks, compensating with higher weight on Curriculum (120 vs 100) and Students’ Performance (150 vs 100) — recognising that affiliated programmes have less curriculum control. Tier I also weights Continuous Improvement at 75 marks vs 50 for Tier II — CQI maturity is the operational discipline that justifies autonomy. The Washington Accord 2021 alignment under GAPC v4.0 applies to both tiers, but only Tier I accredited programmes carry international recognition under the Accord.
What are Complex Engineering Problems (WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA)?
WP and EA are the IEA / Washington Accord framework for defining what makes an engineering problem “complex” enough to qualify at Engineer level (vs Engineering Technologist or Engineering Technician levels). WP stands for the “Range of Complex Engineering Problems” — comprising 7 sub-attributes (WP1-WP7) covering: depth of analysis required, range of conflicting requirements, depth of knowledge needed, familiarity of issues, extent of applicable codes, extent of stakeholder involvement, and interdependence of subsystems. EA stands for the “Range of Complex Engineering Activities” — comprising 5 sub-attributes (EA1-EA5) covering: range of resources, level of interactions, consequences to society and environment, familiarity, and judgment. Under the Revised SAR 2025, programmes must demonstrate which specific courses, capstone projects, and lab exercises address WP and EA sub-attributes — with explicit per-course mapping and evidence in assessment rubrics. Generic curriculum descriptions no longer suffice.
What is an Action Taken Report under Criterion 7?
Under the Revised SAR 2025, Criterion 7 (Continuous Improvement) requires explicit demonstration that PO/PSO attainment data from the previous 3 years was analysed and led to specific curriculum changes. This is the Action Taken Report (ATR) requirement — calculating attainment is only 50% of the job; demonstrating that the data drove decisions is the other 50%. Example: “PO5 (Engineering Tool Usage) attainment for the Software Engineering course was 65% in 2023, below the 70% threshold. Analysis identified Python proficiency as the gap. In 2024, the curriculum was revised to add a 2-credit Python module and 8 lab hours. PO5 attainment in 2025 reached 78%.” This level of traceability across 3 years is what the new format expects.
What are the most common pre-qualifier rejection patterns?
Five recurring pre-qualifier rejection patterns under the Revised SAR 2025: (1) Inconsistencies between SAR sections — same data shown differently in Criterion 3 vs Criterion 5 vs Annexures; (2) Missing Action Taken Reports — programmes show 3-year attainment graphs but cannot demonstrate the corresponding curriculum changes that were triggered; (3) Generic Complex Engineering Problems claims — programmes describe coursework but don’t map specific WP and EA dimensions to specific courses; (4) Industry-Institute Partnership documentation gaps — institutions claim industry collaboration but lack live project records, mentor MoUs, or funding evidence; (5) Faculty retention or cadre ratio red flags — high turnover or under-cadre departments flagged in Criterion 5 (which carries the highest weight at 200 marks). NBA expert teams cross-check every SAR claim against on-site evidence; SAR-evidence misalignment is the largest cause of failure.
What documentation is required for Industry-Institute Partnership?
Under the Revised SAR 2025, Industry-Institute Partnership documentation has become accreditation-relevant evidence rather than nice-to-have. Required artefacts include: signed MoUs with industry partners (not handshake collaborations); live project records — students working on industry-defined problems with documented deliverables; industry mentor engagement records — sessions delivered, advisory board minutes, capstone project supervision; project funding records — sponsorship, grants, infrastructure contributions; placement outcomes traceable to specific industry partners; alumni-led industry connections documented. Institutions that focused only on classroom teaching with weak industry connection will struggle under the new format. The shift reflects NBA’s view that Tier I programmes especially must produce industry-ready graduates with demonstrable workplace exposure.
How does the new SAR format treat research publications?
Under the Revised SAR 2025, Criterion 5 (Faculty Information and Contributions) — which carries the highest single weight at 200 marks — applies quality-over-quantity scrutiny to faculty research output. SCI and Scopus-indexed journals are prioritised over paid open-access journals (the latter increasingly viewed as low-quality predatory). Citations from credible sources matter more than raw publication count. Faculty retention and cadre ratio scrutinised — high turnover departments and under-cadre departments are red flags. Research must demonstrably connect to teaching: faculty research that doesn’t feed into capstone projects, electives, or specialised modules adds less SAR value than research that does.
How does Edhitch support the new SAR 2025 preparation?
Edhitch supports Indian engineering institutions with end-to-end Revised NBA SAR 2025 preparation under GAPC v4.0: SAR drafting for Tier I and Tier II programmes in the new format, OBE software implementation aligned to the 11 GAPC v4.0 POs, CO-PO-PSO mapping and attainment computation, Action Taken Report architecture for Criterion 7 (with 3-year traceability), Complex Engineering Problems (WP) and Complex Engineering Activities (EA) evidence templates, Industry-Institute Partnership documentation packs, faculty research output quality assessment, pre-qualifier readiness diagnostics, mock SAR review, expert team visit preparation, and the integrated NBA + NAAC + NIRF data architecture so the same evidence serves all three frameworks. 12 years of accreditation advisory, 100+ institutions, 9,000+ faculty trained.
Discuss NBA SAR 2025 Strategy
Fill in your details. Our team will review your SAR readiness under the Revised 2025 format within 24 hours.
Enquiry Received!
Our team will respond within 24 hours.
For immediate help: WhatsApp +91-92051 19385