Evaluator Selection Criteria

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

Use source evidence; retain unknowns/conflicts. N/A or missing evidence means no total. Critical ethics/validity failures block use at any score. Scores never authorize fielding or compliance.

You are an expert M&E procurement specialist. Score the evaluator selection criteria section of the Terms of Reference I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - Evaluator Selection Criteria
Rate each dimension 1-5:

DIMENSION 1: Required Expertise Specificity
- Score 5: All 4 elements: Required technical skills named specifically (e.g., "quasi-experimental impact evaluation design," "contribution analysis," "qualitative coding with NVivo"), sector knowledge specified (sub-sector, not just "health" or "education"), methods knowledge specified (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed with named techniques), and tools or software proficiency listed where relevant.
- Score 4: At least 3 of 4 elements: Skills and sector named; methods or tools partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Generic skills with one specific element. Sector named but broadly.
- Score 2: Skills stated as "M&E experience" or "evaluation expertise" without specificity. No methods or tools named.
- Score 1: No required expertise stated, OR expertise requirements unrelated to the evaluation scope.

DIMENSION 2: Experience Breadth and Depth
- Score 5: All 4 elements: Minimum years of experience stated and calibrated to scope (e.g., 8+ years for lead, 4+ for team members), sector experience specified with minimum number of similar engagements, geographic experience specified (region, country type, or specific countries), and methods experience specified (e.g., "minimum two mixed-methods evaluations in the past five years").
- Score 4: At least 3 of 4 elements: Years and sector calibrated; geographic or methods experience partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Years stated but sector or geography generic.
- Score 2: Years stated without scope calibration. No prior-engagement requirements.
- Score 1: No experience requirements stated, OR experience requirements clearly inappropriate to the scope (too low or unrealistically high).

DIMENSION 3: Scoring Matrix Clarity
- Score 5: All 4 elements: Scoring matrix included with named criteria, weights stated per criterion (totaling 100% or a stated total), point scale defined per criterion (e.g., 0-10), and scoring guidance describes what evidence yields what score so two reviewers would converge.
- Score 4: At least 3 of 4 elements: Matrix with weights and scale; reviewer guidance partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Matrix included but weights or scale incomplete.
- Score 2: Criteria listed but no matrix, weights, or scoring scale.
- Score 1: No scoring approach described, OR scoring left to undocumented reviewer judgment.

DIMENSION 4: Diversity and GESI Considerations
- Score 5: All 4 elements: Local or in-country expertise requirement specified, gender balance addressed (team composition expectations or explicit consideration), language requirements specified (working languages plus any local languages needed for fieldwork), and lived experience or representation relevant to the program named where appropriate (e.g., disability-led inquiry, youth participation).
- Score 4: At least 3 of 4 elements: Local expertise and language addressed; gender or lived experience partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Local or language addressed but gender and lived experience absent.
- Score 2: One element present. Diversity referenced as a checkbox without substance.
- Score 1: No diversity or GESI considerations.

DIMENSION 5: Procurement Fairness
- Score 5: All 4 elements: Criteria are objective (verifiable against CV or proposal evidence), criteria are non-discriminatory (no requirements that exclude qualified candidates without programmatic justification), evaluation process is documented (who reviews, how scores combine, how ties are broken), and feedback to unsuccessful bidders is offered or referenced.
- Score 4: At least 3 of 4 elements: Criteria objective and process documented; non-discrimination or feedback partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Criteria objective but process or feedback unstated.
- Score 2: Subjective criteria (e.g., "fits with organization culture") without operational definition. No process.
- Score 1: No process documented, OR criteria contain discriminatory elements with no justification.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Selection Criteria | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------------------------------|-------------------|
| Required Expertise Specificity | | | |
| Experience Breadth and Depth | | | |
| Scoring Matrix Clarity | | | |
| Diversity and GESI Considerations | | | |
| Procurement Fairness | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

EVALUATOR SELECTION CRITERIA TO SCORE:
[Paste your evaluator selection criteria section here]