Accreditation Procedure

Home/Accreditation Procedure

Application for the accreditation of an engineering program must be made formally in writing through the head of the institution. The application must be accompanied by an SAR duly completed in accordance with the format described in Section 7.0 of this manual. The accreditation process commences upon verification of the accreditation fee payment and receipt of the SAR.

The accreditation decision is made by the Board following a rigorous evaluation process involving a review of the SAR, an on-site visit by the Evaluation Team and a review of the Evaluation Team report by the Sectoral Committee.

Steps in the Accreditation Process

The steps involved in the accreditation process are as follows. All communications at every step should occur through the Registrar, BAETE.

1. Submission of the application
2. Formation of the Evaluation Team
3. Communication to the institution about the formation of the Evaluation Team
4. Communication of the institution’s reservations about any member of the Evaluation Team, if any
5. Review of the SAR
6. On-site visit
7. Submission of Evaluation Team report
8. Scrutiny by the Sectoral Committee
9. Response of the institution to factual matters
10. Recommendation of the Sectoral Committee
11. Decision of the Board
12. Communication of the decision to the institution

Annex I provides a schematic flow chart of the steps. The maximum time allocated for each step is shown in the following table.



Maximum allocated time

Formation of the Evaluation Team    3 weeks
Communication of the institution’s reservations    1 week
On-site visit    12 weeks
Report of the Evaluation Team    3 weeks
Scrutiny by the Sectoral Committee    2 weeks
Response of the institution to factual matters    1 week
Recommendation of the Sectoral Committee    2 weeks
Decision of the Board    16 weeks


Application and Submissions

The institution must submit separate application(s) in the prescribed format for the accreditation of each of its eligible programs. The application must accompany a completed SAR and other information/documents as stated in Section 7.0.

If a program’s accreditation is about to expire, the institution must apply for re-accreditation by submitting an application at least six months before the current accreditation expires.

Formation of the Evaluation Team

An Evaluation Team consisting of a Chairperson and two members will be formed by a sub-committee of the Board within three (3) weeks of receiving a completed application package for accreditation. The Chairperson will be a senior academic or a practicing professional in a relevant engineering discipline with adequate experience in the accreditation process. At least one of the members will be from the industry. The Chairperson and team members shall be selected from a pool of qualified evaluators. Upon notification of the formation of the Evaluation Team, the institution may express reservations in writing about any member who may have a conflict of interest, as per Section 2.9, within one (1) week. The specific reason must be cited. The Evaluation Team members are required to declare possible conflicts of interest with the program and the institution, if any, and to abide by the code of confidentiality and professional conduct.

Pre-visit Activities

The Evaluation Team will first review the submitted SAR. If the SAR indicates significant deficiencies in the program and/or the institution, the Evaluation Team may decide not to recommend the program for accreditation without performing the on-site visit. When the SAR indicates that the program is eligible for accreditation, the Chairperson of the Evaluation Team will contact the institution through the BAETE Registrar to arrange the accreditation visit.

Accreditation Visit

The Evaluation Team will conduct a three-day visit within twelve (12) weeks of its formation.

1. The on-site visit allows the Evaluation Team to assess factors related to the accreditation criteria that may not be adequately described in the SAR and to obtain further clarifications from the educational institution. Although it is not possible to adequately describe all the factors to be assessed during the on-site visit, some common factors include the following:

a. Objectives and outcomes of the education provided
b. Quality assurance processes, including internal reviews
c. Assessment of student learning outcomes
d. Student activities and work
e. Entry standards for admission and student selection
f. Faculty members’ motivation and enthusiasm
g. Faculty members’ qualifications and activities
h. Facilities
i. Industry participation

2. To assist the Evaluation Team in its assessment, the educational institution should arrange the following:

a. Meetings with:
i. The Head of the institution, the Dean and Head of the Department, and relevant program and course coordinators
ii. A member of the senior administration/management, preferably the Head of the institution, to discuss how the program fits into the university’s overall strategic direction and focus and the management support available for the continued resourcing and development of the program
iii. A group of faculty members
iv. A group of supporting staff and heads of the support/service departments
v. A group of employee representatives
vi. A group of alumni
vii. A group of students

b. Availability of the following documents for examination:
i. Curriculum vitae of all program faculty members
ii. Evidence that the results of the course and program outcome assessment are being used to review the program and ensure ongoing improvement
iii. Lists of publications by all program faculty members
iv. Sample teaching materials
v. Sample examination papers, quizzes and class tests for all subjects
vi. Sample examination scripts, including at least one excellent, one good and one marginal pass for each examination
vii. Transcripts of immediate past graduates, including those granted advanced standing and those who were in the part-time program if applicable
viii. Sample student project and design reports (excellent, good and marginal pass)
ix. Sample student feedback form
x. Results of other internal or external reviews of the program, department and faculty
xi. Quality assurance review results
xii. Records of meetings of committees relevant to the program
xiii. Records of meetings with stakeholders
xiv. Graduates’ employment records
xv. Any other documents that the Evaluation Team may request

c. Visits to:
i. Faculty office rooms
ii. Classrooms
iii. Laboratories, especially those used for undergraduate courses
iv. The library
v. IT facilities
vi. Career/placement center, co- and extra-curricular facilities, medical facilities
vii. Canteen
viii. Washrooms/toilet facilities

3. At the end of the on-site visit, the Evaluation Team will hold an exit meeting to present its preliminary findings to key personnel of the educational institution, including the Head of the institution and the Head of Department/Chair of School for the program being evaluated.

Post-visit Activities of Evaluation Team

The Evaluation Team will submit its evaluation report to the BAETE Registrar within three (3) weeks of the visit. In finalizing its report with findings and recommendations, the Evaluation Team may consider additional submissions requested from the institution during the on-site visit. The Evaluation Team will make a holistic quality judgment of each criterion against the benchmark requirements stipulated in this manual in terms of compliance, concern, weakness and deficiency. These terms are defined as follows.

Compliance: A criterion, policy, or procedure has adequately satisfied the benchmark requirements stipulated in the manual. No corrective measure is required to strengthen compliance prior to the next review.

Concern: A criterion, policy, or procedure is broadly in compliance but requires improvement to avoid compromising the quality of the program or is currently in compliance but the potential exists for the situation to change, resulting in future non- compliance. Progress on the corrective measures is required prior to the next review.

Weakness: A criterion, policy, or procedure lacks compliance, compromising the quality of the program. Corrective measures are required to strengthen compliance prior to the next review.

Deficiency: A criterion, policy, or procedure either does not exist or is in the elementary stage. Compliance is required.

The findings and recommendations of the Evaluation Team must be supported with evidence. Although the Evaluation Team should not prescribe the details of the corrective measures to be taken, some broad-level recommendations and suggestions are required. The evaluation report may briefly highlight the strengths of the program and the institution as encouragement and in recognition of good practices.

Scrutiny by Sectoral Committee

The Evaluation Team’s report will be moderated for consistency and procedural discrepancies by the relevant Sectoral Committee within two (2) weeks of submission. If the Sectoral Committee identifies areas of inconsistency or procedural discrepancies, the Evaluation Team will be asked to provide clarification and/or revise the report

Response of Institution

The moderated report will be shared with the institution, which may submit a written response regarding any factual error in the report within one (1) week. The educational institution does not have the right to require a change in the report but may note any statement that may be incorrect or provide comments. The Sectoral Committee will submit the institution’s response along with the Evaluation Team’s report and its recommendation to the Registrar of BAETE to table for decision making at the next BAETE board meeting. The Evaluation Team will receive a copy of the moderated report along with the institution’s response and the Sectoral Committee’s recommendation.

Decision Process

The Board will make the final decision regarding the application for accreditation primarily based on the findings and recommendations of the Evaluation Team, with moderation by the Sectoral Committee. In making its decision, the Board will adhere to the published accreditation policy and procedure and ensure the consistency of discipline-specific program criteria across different institutions.

The Board will make a decision within sixteen (16) weeks from the date the recommendation of the Sectoral Committee is submitted. The accreditation decision will be communicated to the concerned institution.

Follow-up Action as a Requirement for Accreditation

If follow-up action is required as a condition for accreditation, the BAETE will require the educational institution to submit a report within a specified period. The specified period will vary depending on the nature of the requirement and whether the follow-up actions can be developed and implemented within a short time frame. The BAETE may also require a follow-up visit to review the actions taken by the educational institution. The educational institution must meet all direct costs associated with the follow-up visit.

Disput Resolution

An institution may appeal the accreditation decision in writing within two (2) weeks of receiving the decision and paying a prescribed fee. An appeal may include a request for re-consideration or a revisit and should be accompanied by a report to substantiate the request. The appeal will be submitted to the Appellate Committee for deliberation. The Appellate Committee may invite the institution filing the petition and the members of the Evaluation Team to present their positions. Appellate Committee itself will determine its methods of operation, giving due consideration to the substance of the appeal petition. The Appellate Committee may ask the BAETE to consider the appeal based on the SAR submitted by the institution. BAETE should respond to its recommendations within one (1) month. The Appellate Committee will make the final decision within three (3) months after receiving the appeal petition. If the petition is denied, the Appellate Committee will provide the institution with reasons for the denial.