Open with the problem you are solving, not a feature list. Who will use the system, with what frequency, and how is the job done today? A vendor who knows what you are trying to achieve will suggest a simpler way to reach it; someone handed only the requirements as given can only price your assumptions along with the work.
Define what is included as user stories or software development engagement models scenarios: what the user does and what the system does hire developers in russia response. Just as important, state explicitly what the first release deliberately excludes. A written out-of-scope list prevents more disagreement at delivery time than the rest of the brief combined. Mark too which is better laravel or .net decisions are settled and which are still under discussion — honest teams price those differently, and concealing the open questions only hurts you.
List the constraints. These include the platforms and services involved, existing databases and their quality, security and compliance rules, expected load, target platforms and any technology you are committed to. If a deadline is real, say what depends on it: an experienced team can often rearrange the plan to meet it, provided they hear about it early.
Write down what done means for each item. Acceptance criteria do not need special syntax: a short paragraph describing what must be true when the feature works is enough. This single habit reduces the sign-off process considerably and removes the most common source of disputes.
Finally, state what you want in the response. Require a breakdown by feature or module, a written list of assumptions, whatever the team considers risky and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Take a broad range as information, not evasion: it usually points to where your description is thin. Then clarify that area and ask for a new estimate — the next version will be the one worth planning around.