Open with the reason this software should exist, not a feature list. Which people will use this, how many times a day, and how is the job done today? An experienced team who grasps the purpose can propose a simpler way to reach it; someone handed only a feature list can only price exactly what you asked for.

Describe the scope as short scenarios: what the user does and what the system does in response. Just as important, state explicitly what the first release deliberately excludes. An explicit list of exclusions saves more friction later than the rest of the brief combined. Indicate as well which parts are firm and which are still open — honest teams price those differently, and hiding it only hurts you.

Write down the hard constraints. These include existing systems the software has to talk to, the data you already hold and its condition, typescript framework security and compliance rules, traffic expectations, which devices matter and any technology you are committed to. Where a date is genuinely fixed, explain what drives it: an experienced team can often cut the right scope to meet it, provided they hear about it early.

Say what completion means feature by feature. Acceptance criteria need not use formal language: a short list stating what a user should be able to do will do. This single habit reduces the review at the end by a surprising margin and removes the usual argument at handover.

One last thing, state what you want in the response. Require a task-level breakdown, the assumptions behind each number, whatever the team considers risky and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Take a broad range as information, not evasion: top react js development companies it tells you where your description is thin. Then rewrite that part and request a revised number — the revised figure will be far closer to reality.