AB-02
Bihar State Skill Development Mission
Standard AB · State Government Body · Multi-sector (State) · Bihar
REWS risk band
Low (24.0)
Letter grade
B64.8
Escalation
Routine
0 red flag(s)
Renewal readiness
READY – Standard Renewal
Risk narrative
AB-02 Bihar State Skill Development Mission carries a Low REWS risk band (composite risk score 24.0) and letter grade B (Compliant / Satisfactory) after a 0-point risk-linked deduction from a weighted domain score of 64.8. No red flags are present; amber indicators to watch include: G1 (Leadership changes (Chairperson/CEO) in last 12 months: value 1 count; threshold green ≤ 0, amber ≤ 1 → Amber); F2 (YoY revenue growth: value 3 %; threshold green ≥ 5, amber ≥ -10 → Amber); F3 (Maximum statutory/vendor payment delay: value 45 days; threshold green ≤ 30, amber ≤ 90 → Amber). Recommended posture: ROUTINE. Renewal readiness: READY – Standard Renewal. Monitoring cadence: Annual review (standard cycle).
Category health scores
Governance Risk
86.7
Weight 15%
Financial Risk
73.3
Weight 20%
Assessment Risk
86.7
Weight 20%
Technology Risk
73.3
Weight 10%
Compliance Risk
73.3
Weight 20%
Training & Outcome Risk
60.0
Weight 15%
Indicator RAG breakdown
| Code | Indicator | Value | Green | Amber | Score | RAG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Leadership changes (Chairperson/CEO) in last 12 monthsGovernance Risk · Lower · count | 1 | 0 | 1 | 60 | Amber |
| G2 | Statutory committees non-functional (Board/Audit/Grievance)Governance Risk · Lower · count | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| G3 | Unresolved conflict-of-interest cases reportedGovernance Risk · Lower · count | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| F1 | Net worthFinancial Risk · Higher · Rs Lakh | 80 | 50 | 0 | 100 | Green |
| F2 | YoY revenue growthFinancial Risk · Higher · % | 3 | 5 | -10 | 60 | Amber |
| F3 | Maximum statutory/vendor payment delayFinancial Risk · Lower · days | 45 | 30 | 90 | 60 | Amber |
| A1 | Pass-rate deviation from national benchmark (abs.)Assessment Risk · Lower · pp | 8 | 10 | 20 | 100 | Green |
| A2 | Batches with missing assessment evidenceAssessment Risk · Lower · % sampled | 2 | 2 | 5 | 100 | Green |
| A3 | Reassessment / appeal rateAssessment Risk · Lower · % | 4 | 3 | 7 | 60 | Amber |
| T1 | Data security incidentsTechnology Risk · Lower · count/yr | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| T2 | Missing mandatory integrations (Kaushal Verse/SIDH/ABC)Technology Risk · Lower · count | 1 | 0 | 1 | 60 | Amber |
| T3 | System downtime (assessment/LMS platform)Technology Risk · Lower · hrs/qtr | 6 | 4 | 12 | 60 | Amber |
| C1 | MIS/data non-submission instancesCompliance Risk · Lower · count/yr | 1 | 0 | 2 | 60 | Amber |
| C2 | Average delay in regulatory reportingCompliance Risk · Lower · days | 12 | 7 | 20 | 60 | Amber |
| C3 | Regulatory violations / show-cause noticesCompliance Risk · Lower · count/yr | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| L1 | Learner dropout rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Lower · % | 14 | 10 | 20 | 60 | Amber |
| L2 | Placement / employment rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Higher · % | 42 | 50 | 30 | 60 | Amber |
| L3 | Trainer vacancy rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Lower · % | 15 | 10 | 25 | 60 | Amber |
Grading domain breakdown
| Domain | Raw (0–100) | Weight | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Governance & Institutional Capacity | 75.0 | 10% | 7.5 |
| D2 Financial Sustainability | 68.0 | 10% | 6.8 |
| D3 Qualification Design & Curriculum (QP-NOS alignment) | 70.0 | 10% | 7.0 |
| D4 Training Delivery & Trainer Quality | 65.0 | 15% | 9.8 |
| D5 Assessment Quality & Integrity | 66.0 | 15% | 9.9 |
| D6 Industry Engagement & Learner Outcomes | 60.0 | 15% | 9.0 |
| D7 Technology & Innovation Enablement | 55.0 | 10% | 5.5 |
| D8 Future Planning, Grievance Redressal & Governance Response | 62.0 | 15% | 9.3 |
Decision matrix actions
Regulator (NCVET) actions
• Move to quarterly desk review + half-yearly audit (per REWS cadence). • Require submission of Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) within 30 days. • Conditional renewal – tie renewal to QIP milestone closure. • Capacity-building session for identified gap areas (RFP Cl.3.1e). • Flag for inclusion in next risk-based surprise-audit cycle.
Awarding Body actions
• Submit QIP with root-cause analysis and timelines within stipulated period. • Attend NCVET capacity-building/TOT sessions. • Close specific red/amber indicators (e.g. reporting delays, committee functionality) and evidence closure. • Nominate a single point of contact for QIP tracking.
Global TVET precedent
Ofqual 'monitoring' category with improvement plan; ASQA 'conditions on registration'; QCTO probationary accreditation.
Monitoring cadence: Annual review (standard cycle)
What-if simulator
Edit raw REWS indicators or domain scores — risk band, grade, and actions recalculate instantly. Try dragging F3 Payment delay upward on a Medium-risk AB.