Start with the reason this software should exist, not your preferred technology. Which people will use it day to day, how often, and what does the process look like without it? An estimator who grasps the purpose often proposes a simpler way to reach it; someone handed only the requirements as given can only price exactly what you asked for.

Set out the scope as short scenarios: laravel vs nextjs what the user does and what the system does in response. Equally important, state explicitly what you are not building. An explicit list of exclusions saves more friction later than any other single page. Mark too which decisions are settled and which may still change — honest teams price those differently, and concealing the open questions helps nobody.

Write down the hard constraints. This means the platforms and services involved, the data you have and where it lives, regulatory obligations, traffic expectations, which devices matter and infrastructure that is already decided. Where a date is genuinely fixed, explain what drives it: hire dedicated vue.js developers a good team is usually able to rearrange the plan to meet it, but not if the date is a secret.

Define what completion means feature by feature. Acceptance criteria need not use special syntax: a short paragraph setting out what a user should be able to do will do. That one addition compresses the review at the end by a surprising margin and closes off most late-stage disagreement.

Finally, say what you expect back. Request a task-level breakdown, a written list of assumptions, the risks the team sees and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Treat a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it tells you exactly which requirement is unclear. From there tighten that section and ask again — the revised figure tends to be far closer to reality.