Rules for assessment and voting in procedures for evaluation, accreditation and post-accreditation control

I. General provisions.

Art. 1. (1) The procedures for evaluation, accreditation and post-accreditation control shall be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Statute of the National Evaluation and Accreditation Agency (NEAA), the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) – part 1 (1-10), as well as the criteria for evaluation and accreditation.

(2) The accreditation grade shall be given based on an assessment methodology endorsed by the Accreditation Council (AC) of NEAA for each type of procedure, as well as based on the verbal assessments of ENQA, according to which:

1. “Full compliance” is awarded to a criterion which has received a numerical score of 9.00 to 10.00;
2. “Substantial compliance” is awarded to a criterion which has received a numerical score of 7.00 to 8.99;
3. “Partial compliance” is awarded to a criterion which has received a numerical score of 4.00 to 6.99;
4. “Non-compliance” is awarded to a criterion which has received a numerical score of 0 to 3.99.

Art. 2. (1) The assessment under a procedure for initial institutional accreditation shall be based on findings regarding the fulfilment of the requirements set out in Art. 77, para. 3, items 1-5 of the HEA.

(2) The assessment under a procedure for subsequent institutional accreditation shall be based on findings regarding the fulfilment of the requirements set out in Art. 77, para. 3, items 1-4 of the HEA and consideration of the results of the assessment grades received for the individual professional fields and/or specialties from regulated professions.

(3) Higher education institutions that meet the requirements of Art. 77, para. 3, items 1-4 of the HEA shall receive institutional accreditation with an assessment grade that is calculated as the average weighted value of the latest grades awarded in all professional fields and specialties from the regulated professions, based on the number of students, in accordance with the relevant methodology under Art. 1, para. 2.

(4) Upon receipt of an assessment grade below 4.00 or in case the higher education institution has not met one or more of the criteria set out in Art. 77, para. 3, items 1-4 of the HEA, institutional accreditation shall be refused.

Art. 3. (1) The assessment under a procedure for programme accreditation shall be based on findings regarding the fulfilment of the requirements set out in Art. 78, para. 3 of the HEA.

(2) The assessment for programme accreditation shall be carried out according to a ten-point scale, ranging from 0 to 10.00.

(3) Upon receipt of an assessment grade below 4.00 according to the relevant methodology under Art. 1, para. 2, programme accreditation shall be refused.

(4) Programme accreditation shall also be refused for professional fields and specialties from the regulated professions with an assessment grade below 4.00 on one or more of the criteria set out in Art. 78, para. 3, items 1-3 of the HEA, in case there are any of the following inconsistences in any of them:

1. Under Art. 78, para. 3, item 1 of the HEA, “The structure, organization and content of curricula and programmes”:

a) One or more of the following documents are missing: qualification description (qualification characteristics), curriculum, syllabi, adopted in accordance with the due procedure;

b) The structure and content of the curriculum and/or syllabi do not correspond to the specifics of the PF/SRP.

c) The curriculum does not comply with the Ordinance No. 21 of 30 September 2004 on the implementation of a system for the accumulation and transfer of credits in higher education institutions, the Ordinance on the state requirements for the acquisition of higher education for the educational qualification degrees “Bachelor”, “Master” and “Specialist”, and/or the Ordinances governing the specific requirements for conducting training in the individual specialties from the regulated professions;

d) The curriculum does not correspond to the qualification description;

e) The qualification description of the relevant specialty does not clearly specify the qualification to be acquired as a result of the completed training, or the qualification does not correspond to the exact level in the national qualifications framework.

2. Under Art. 78, para. 3, item 2 of the HEA, “The profile and qualifications of the faculty, the completeness of the documentation concerning the procedures for occupying academic positions and the public access provided within the statutory time limits in accordance with the Development of Academic Staff in the Republic of Bulgaria Act”:

a) There is no academic staff under main employment contract with a profile and qualification in the relevant professional field or specialty from the regulated professions, entered in the NACID register, to provide training in the specialized disciplines in the individual specialties;

b) When conducting procedures for occupying academic positions, the requirements of the HEA and/or the DASRBA, respectively the RIDASRBA, have not been complied with (non-compliance with the statutory deadlines, lack of documentation, lack of public access, etc.).

3. Under Art. 78, para. 3, item 3 of the HEA, “Material and technical provision for the purposes of education”:

a) The material and technical base is insufficient and/or does not meet the modern requirements for conducting training in the PF/SRP (including the base necessary for practical classes, conducting experiments, scientific research, artistic and creative activities, and sports activities of trainees and teachers);

b) Training in specialties in DFL has been conducted without provision of sufficient and up-to-date digital and information resources.

(5) The assessment of doctoral programmes of higher education institutions within the framework of the assessment of the relevant professional field according to the schedule under Art. 81, para. 2 of the HEA shall be carried out according to a simplified procedure after the assessment of the professional field (PF), respectively the specialty from the regulated profession (SRP), and upon receipt of an assessment grade from 8.00 to 10.00 in accordance with the requirements of Art. 79a, para. 3 of the HEA.

(6) The assessment outside the schedule under Art. 81, para. 2 of the HEA of doctoral programmes of higher education institutions and scientific organizations shall be carried out by inspecting all criteria for programme accreditation of doctoral programmes in accordance with ESG – Part 1 (1-10) and in accordance with Art. 78, para. 1-6 of the HEA.

(7) The assessment under a procedure for evaluation of a project for opening of higher education institutions, faculties, branches, colleges, territorial units in the country and abroad, and of professional fields and specialties from the regulated professions shall be based on findings regarding the fulfilment of the requirements set out in Art. 79, para. 2 of the HEA and shall be completed with a positive or negative assessment grade.

(8) The procedure for project evaluation may not be initiated before an ongoing institutional accreditation procedure has been completed.

Art. 4. (1) The assessment in the Standing Committee on Post-Accreditation Monitoring and Control (SCPAMC) shall be carried out according to a schedule approved by the AC and shall cover:

1. the fulfilment of the recommendations made by the Accreditation Council upon institutional or programme accreditation of higher education institutions;

2. the implementation of the internal system for assessment and maintenance of the quality of training and academic staff in higher education institutions.

(2) In case failure to comply in time with the recommendations made by the Accreditation Council upon institutional or programme accreditation and/or failure to comply with the criteria for the implementation of the internal system for assessment and maintenance of the quality of training and academic staff are found as a result of the post-accreditation monitoring and control, the SCPAMC shall adopt a decision containing a proposal to the Accreditation Council to determine and administer specific sanctions in accordance with the requirements of Art. 88c, para. 5 of the HEA.

II. Procedure for assessment and voting in the Standing Committees on Areas of Higher Education

Art. 5. (1) The assessment in the Standing Committees on Areas of Higher Education (SCAHE) shall be consistent with the findings made during the procedure and reflected in the report of the relevant expert group.

(2) In case a SCAHE identifies inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the report of the relevant expert group, it must instruct the expert group to rectify them within a specified short period of time, or consider them at its meeting and give reasons in writing for not accepting the relevant finding of the expert group.

(3) If the opinion of the institution under evaluation indicates inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the report of the relevant SCAHE, the Standing Committee must consider them at its meeting and give reasons in writing in case it does not accept the relevant allegations of inaccuracy or inconsistency.

Art. 6. (1) Upon programme accreditation of a professional field or a specialty from the regulated professions, the relevant SCAHE shall first verify the consistent fulfilment of the criteria under Art. 78, para. 3, items 1-3 of the HEA, whereby its members verify whether any inconsistencies specified in Art. 3, para. 4 are present. Upon finding such an inconsistency, the members of the SCAHE shall, by open vote, assign a grade of 3.99 for the relevant criterion and propose that the Accreditation Council issue a refusal. In this case, the other criteria shall not be assessed and the relevant methodology under Art. 1, para. 2 shall not be applied. Upon finding compliance with the requirements specified in Art. 3, para. 4, the SCAHE shall proceeds to calculate the assessment grade in accordance with the methodology set out in Annex 1.

(2) The members of the Standing Committee shall consider and assess each qualitative indicator, and the grades for the quantitative indicators shall be automatically calculated according to an algorithm specified in the methodology.

(3) The grades for the assessment criteria shall be calculated based on the grades for the individual quantitative and qualitative indicators according to the methodology.

(4) In the case of simultaneous assessment of the same PF or SRP in different HEIs, all results from the inspections performed shall be taken into account while comparing and contrasting the data on the individual indicators.

Art. 7. (1) Based on the assessment carried out, the SCAHE shall adopt a decision containing reasoned findings regarding the compliance of the evidence presented by the institution under evaluation with the criteria for institutional or programme accreditation within the meaning of Art. 77, para. 3 or Art. 78, para. 3 of the HEA and a proposal for an assessment grade under the relevant procedure.

(2) In accordance with Art. 13, para. 11 of the SNEAA, the decisions of the SCAHE shall be adopted by an open vote by a simple majority of those present.

Art. 8. (1) The Chairperson shall announce the result of the assessment and voting and, assisted by the expert of the Committee, shall record it in the protocol (minutes) of the meeting.

(2) In case a member of the SCAHE disagrees with a decision taken, they may give reasons for their disagreement in writing by submitting a dissenting opinion to the relevant decision within three days of its adoption.

Art. 9. (1) Each member of the SCAHE shall be obliged to familiarize themselves with the content of the protocol in a timely manner prior to its adoption.

(2) In case inaccuracies and/or ambiguities are noticed in the protocol, the Chairperson, assisted by the expert of the Committee, shall rectify them, after which the protocol shall be adopted by the members of the Committee and signed by the Chairperson and the expert.

Art. 10 (1) The Chairperson of the SCAHE shall prepare a report on the relevant procedure, which shall also contain information within the meaning of Art. 5, para. 3, and shall submit it, together with the report of the Committee and the opinion of the institution under evaluation, to the member of the Accreditation Council observing the activity of the Committee.

(2) The member of the Accreditation Council observing the activity of the Committee shall review the documents submitted to them and to familiarize themselves with the materials under the relevant procedure, and in case they find any inaccuracies or a need to make edits, they shall make relevant proposals to the Chairperson of the SCAHE.

(3) After taking into account the proposals, the Chairperson of the SCAHE shall submit their report to the Accreditation Council, together with the other documents under para. 1.

(4) When accreditation procedures are carried out for the same PF or SRP at different HEIs, the report and the other documents under para. 1 shall be submitted simultaneously to the Accreditation Council.

III. Procedure for assessment and voting in the Standing Committee on Post-Accreditation Monitoring and Control

Art. 11. (1) When carrying out procedures for post-accreditation monitoring and control regarding the implementation of recommendations made by the Accreditation Council upon institutional or programme accreditation, the assessment shall be carried out through verbal assessments, as follows:

1. In the case of recommendations with a fixed deadline for implementation, the assessment may be:

- “the recommendation has been implemented” – in case of complete fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation;

- “the recommendation has been partially implemented” – in case of incomplete fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation;

- “the recommendation has not been implemented” – in case of complete non- fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation;

2. In the case of recommendations where the deadline is “permanent”, the assessment may be:

- “the recommendation is being implemented” – in case of complete fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation;

- “the recommendation is being partially implemented” – in case of incomplete fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation;

- “the recommendation is not being implemented” – in case of complete non- fulfilment of the requirements specified in the recommendation.

(2) When carrying out procedures for post-accreditation monitoring and control regarding compliance with criteria for implementing the internal system for assessment and maintenance of the quality of training and academic staff, the assessment shall be carried out through verbal assessments, which may be:

- “the criterion is met” – in case of full compliance with the requirements specified in the content of the criterion;

- “the criterion is partially met” – in case of incomplete compliance with the requirements specified in the content of the criterion;

- “the criterion is not met” – in case of complete non-compliance with the requirements specified in the content of the criterion.

Art. 12 (1) When carrying out a procedure for post-accreditation monitoring and control requiring an on-site visit to the institution under inspection by an expert group, the assessment shall be consistent with the findings made in the course of the procedure and reflected in the report of the expert group.

(2) In case the SCPAMC identifies inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the report of the relevant expert group, it shall instruct the expert group to rectify them within a specified short period of time, or consider them at its meeting and reflect in the report of the Committee and in the report of findings the reasons for not accepting the relevant finding of the expert group.

Art. 13. (1) In accordance with Art.13, para. 11 of the SNEAA, the decisions of the SCPAMC shall be adopted by an open vote by a simple majority of those present.

(2) When voting, each member of the SCPAMC shall clearly state their assessment on each recommendation and criterion, respectively.

(3) The Chairperson shall announce the result of the assessment and voting and record it in the protocol of the meeting.

(4) In case a member of the PCPAMC disagrees with a decision taken, they may give reasons for their disagreement in writing by submitting a dissenting opinion to the relevant decision within three days of its adoption.

(5) Each member of the PCPAMC shall be obliged to familiarize themselves with the content of the protocol in a timely manner prior to its adoption.

(6) In case inaccuracies and/or ambiguities are noticed in the protocol, the Chairperson, assisted by the expert of the Committee, shall rectify them, after which the protocol shall be adopted by the members of the Committee and signed by the Chairperson and the expert.

(7) After coordination with the Vice-Chairperson on PAMC, the Chairperson of the Committee shall submit a report with the assessments under the relevant procedure included therein to the Accreditation Council. When a procedure requiring an on-site visit by an expert group to the institution under evaluation has been carried out, the Chairperson of the Committee shall, after coordination with the Vice-Chairperson on PAMC, submit the report of the EG and the report of findings under the relevant procedure to the Accreditation Council.

IV. Procedure for assessment and voting in the Accreditation Council

Art. 14. (1) After the submission of the documents for each specific procedure, the members of the Accreditation Council shall be obliged to familiarize themselves therewith before the session at which they are to be considered.

(2) During the session, the member of the Accreditation Council observing the activity of the Committee shall present the main points of the procedure to the other members of the Council and draw attention to its specifics.

(3) In accordance with Art. 39, para. 1 of the SNEAA, based on the report of the SCAHE and the opinion of the evaluated institution, the Accreditation Council shall adopt, by an open vote and by simple majority, a reasoned decision in which an assessment grade shall be given.

(4) When accreditation procedures are carried out for the same PF or SRP at different HEIs, the members of the Accreditation Council shall vote within the same session for each individual procedure regarding the same PF or SRP.

(5) If the Accreditation Council accepts the assessment grade proposed by the relevant SCAHE, it shall indicate its value in its reasoned decision and may adopt the reasons of the SCAHE as its own.

(6) If the Accreditation Council does not accept the assessment grade proposed by the relevant SCAHE on the grounds that it does not correspond to the findings reflected in the report of the SCAHE on the procedure, or in case it finds that the evidence in the report is insufficient, or that the proposed conclusions do not correspond to the established facts and the evidence, it shall return the report with a reasoned decision for revision by the Standing Committee.

(7) After the report has been revised and sent to the institution under evaluation, if its new opinion indicates any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the revised report of the relevant SCAHE, the Standing Committee must consider them at its meeting and give reasons in writing in case it does not accept the relevant allegations of inaccuracy or inconsistency.

(8) The SCAHE shall carry out new assessment (where necessary) and vote in accordance with the procedure set out in Part II, and then resubmit the report to the Accreditation Council, in compliance with Art. 10.

(9) In the cases under para. 8, if the Accreditation Council finds that the SCAHE has not reflected the inaccuracies noted, it shall have the right to gather and consider the necessary evidence and render its decision without regard to the findings of the Committee and its proposed assessment grade.

(10) In the cases under in para. 9, the rules of Part II, Art. 5 to 7 shall apply accordingly.

Art. 15. These rules shall also apply accordingly to the procedures of the SCPAMC, taking into account the specifics of assessment and voting set out in Part III.

These Rules were adopted at a session of the Accreditation Council of NEEA, ProtocolNo. 8, dated 16 May 2024, amended and supplemented at a session of the Accreditation Council of NEAA, Protocol No. 14 dated 17 July 2025.