Good fit
- Universities and colleges approaching a NAAC cycle
- IQAC teams strengthening evidence architecture before submission pressure
- Institutional leaders who want a truthful readiness picture and clear ownership
For higher-education institutions and IQAC teams
NAAC/IQAC Evidence Readiness
Move from scattered documents to criterion-wise, traceable evidence — without paperwork theatre, manufactured claims or last-minute reconstruction.
Request a readiness diagnostic →
The buyer problem
What needs to change
Institutions often have substantial activity but cannot retrieve consistent, criterion-wise evidence or explain how figures were produced. Gaps surface late, when the cost of correction is highest.
Cost of inaction
Unresolved evidence gaps can create contradictory submissions, weak verification trails, avoidable DVV questions, staff overload and a fragile accreditation process.
Fit before scope
Who this is for — and who it is not for
Not a fit
- Institutions seeking fabricated evidence or inflated claims
- Teams unwilling to disclose material gaps to responsible leadership
- Organisations expecting a guaranteed grade or outcome
Process outcomes
What the engagement is designed to leave behind
These are defined working outputs and capability improvements — not guarantees of an external decision or result.
A criterion-wise view of evidence readiness and material gaps
A traceable structure connecting claims, source records and owners
Prioritised remediation before full drafting or verification
A realistic decision on whether the institution is ready for the next stage
Exact deliverables
What lands on your desk
- Criterion-wise evidence inventory and gap analysis
- Source-to-claim traceability matrix
- Data-quality and consistency review
- DVV/DCF readiness checklist and ownership map
- Leadership briefing with sequenced remediation priorities
Client inputs
What we need from you
- Current accreditation stage, timetable and institutional profile
- Available criterion-wise records, policies and data extracts
- Access to IQAC and criterion owners for structured clarification
- Known data-quality, retrieval or verification concerns
Method
A documented route from problem to evidence
Inventory
Map what exists, where it sits and who can evidence it.
Trace
Connect each material claim to a source, calculation and responsible owner.
Challenge
Test consistency, completeness and likely verification questions.
Ready
Prioritise remediation and define the next defensible stage of work.
Indicative investment
The range is a guide; the written scope fixes the fee
₹1,00,000–₹2,50,000 for documentation and readiness advisory. Full SSR preparation and peer-visit support, when separately agreed, is typically ₹2,50,000–₹6,00,000.
Every engagement is scoped in writing against objectives, inputs, methods, deliverables, review points and exclusions before work begins.
What changes the price
- Institution type, accreditation stage and number of criteria in scope
- Document volume, data quality and retrieval effort
- Whether the engagement stops at diagnosis or includes drafting and mock review
- Remote versus agreed on-site support
Ethical boundaries
What Gurjas will not deliver
- No fabricated, backdated or misleading evidence
- No guaranteed grade, accreditation decision or peer-team response
- No submission of figures that the institution cannot source and explain
- No use of confidential institutional material outside the written scope
Relevant proof
Credentials and methods you can verify
FAQ
Questions to settle before a fit call
Does the diagnostic include SSR drafting?
No. The entry diagnostic establishes readiness, traceability and priorities. Full SSR preparation is a separate scope and only uses evidence supplied and validated by the institution.
Can you guarantee a NAAC grade?
No. We improve evidence organisation, methodological clarity and readiness; accreditation decisions remain entirely with the authorised body.
Can the work be delivered remotely?
Yes, where records and responsible staff are available securely online. Any on-site requirement is agreed explicitly in the written scope.
A clear first step
Start with the problem, evidence available and decision deadline.
Use the structured intake form. We usually respond within two working days with fit, missing inputs and the next sensible scope.