Start with the problem you are solving, not a feature list. Which people will use it day to day, how many times a day, and what does the process look like without it? An estimator who knows what you are trying to achieve often proposes a simpler way to reach it; a team that receives only a list of screens will price your assumptions along with the work.
Set out the scope as concrete flows: a walk through each important path. Every bit as useful, write down what is out of scope. A written out-of-scope list prevents more argument at delivery time than the rest of the brief combined. Mark too which is better laravel or ruby on rails items are decided and which are still open — honest teams price those differently, and concealing the open questions helps no one.
Set out your constraints. The list covers existing systems the software has to talk to, the data you already hold and its condition, compliance requirements, expected load, which devices matter and infrastructure that is already decided. If there is a hard date, explain what drives it: a team will often rearrange the plan to protect it, but not if the date is a secret.
Define what the word done means feature by feature. Acceptance criteria need not use formal language: devops services company a short list stating what must be true when the feature works is sufficient. That one addition reduces acceptance testing by a surprising margin and closes off most late-stage disagreement.
One last thing, best .net development company ask for a specific format. Request a task-level breakdown, a written list of assumptions, laravel or .net whatever the team considers risky and a low number and a high number. Take a broad range as information, not evasion: it normally identifies the part of the brief that needs work. At that point clarify that area and ask again — the revised figure is much more reliable.