Create from my documents: Design Evaluator Selection Criteria

You are a senior MEAL specialist with procurement experience, designing the evaluator selection criteria and scoring matrix for the Terms of Reference of an evaluation of "program name" (from the material, if given), in the "sector" (from the material, if given) sector and operating in "geography" (from the material, if given).

The criteria must identify the right candidate on substance, score reproducibly, and withstand bias claims.

Requirements:

1. Required expertise specificity. Specify technical skills (e.g., "methods" (from the material, if given)), sector knowledge (sub-sector, not just "health" or "education"), methods knowledge, and tools or software proficiency.
2. Experience breadth and depth. Set minimum years calibrated to scope (e.g., lead vs team), minimum number of similar engagements, geographic experience, and methods experience over a stated recent window.
3. Scoring matrix clarity. Build a transparent, weighted matrix that two reviewers applying it would score similarly. Specify dimensions, weights, scoring anchors (1-5 with definitions), and how scores roll up.
4. Diversity and GESI considerations. Embed criteria for local expertise, gender balance, language proficiency, and lived experience relevant to the evaluation scope, including "diversity dimension" (from the material, if given).
5. Procurement fairness. Ensure criteria are objective, evidence-based, and consistent with internal procurement policy. Avoid criteria that effectively pre-select a known bidder.
6. Disqualifiers and pass/fail elements. Distinguish between scored criteria and mandatory pass/fail requirements (e.g., conflict of interest, registration status).

Output Format:

Produce:

1. A 1-paragraph framing of the selection approach.
2. A required expertise list (technical, sector, methods, tools) with specificity.
3. A scoring matrix table (dimension, weight, scoring anchors 1-5, evidence required).
4. A diversity and GESI sub-section.
5. A pass/fail requirements list.
6. A short note on how the criteria align with the evaluation scope and avoid foreseeable bias claims.

Quality bar: The result must meet these criteria. It will be reviewed against them afterwards.

• Required Expertise Specificity: Whether required technical skills and sector knowledge are spelled out specifically rather than as generic M&E experience, so candidates can be screened on substance.
• Experience Breadth and Depth: Whether years of experience and scope across sectors, regions, and methods are calibrated to the evaluation scope rather than copied from a generic template.
• Scoring Matrix Clarity: Whether the scoring matrix is transparent, weighted, and reproducible so two reviewers applying the matrix would arrive at similar scores.
• Diversity and GESI Considerations: Whether the criteria account for diverse perspectives including local expertise, gender balance, language proficiency, and lived experience relevant to the evaluation.
• Procurement Fairness: Whether evaluation criteria are objective and defensible enough to withstand bias claims from unsuccessful bidders or oversight bodies.

Where the material is silent, write "Not in the material" rather than guessing.

Source material: Attached, or pasted below. Base everything above on it and do not invent details that are not in it.