Begin with the reason this software should exist, not a feature list. What kind of user will use this, how many times a day, and what does the process look like without it? A vendor who knows what you are trying to achieve will suggest a simpler way to reach it; a team that receives only a list of screens prices exactly what you asked for.
Set out the scope as user stories or scenarios: who does what, and laravel vs .net what happens next. Every bit as useful, write down what you are not building. An explicit list of exclusions saves more friction during acceptance than almost anything else in the document. Mark too which parts are firm and which may still change — honest teams price those differently, and concealing the open questions helps no one.
Write down the hard constraints. This means existing systems the software has to talk to, existing databases and their quality, security and laravel consulting services compliance rules, expected load, supported browsers or devices and nearshore or offshore software development infrastructure that is already decided. If a deadline is real, custom react web development say why: a team can often rearrange the plan to hit it, but not if the date is a secret.
Define what completion means for each item. Acceptance criteria need not use any formal notation: a short list stating what must be true when the feature works is enough. That one addition reduces the sign-off process considerably and removes most late-stage disagreement.
To close, state what you want in the response. Request an itemised estimate, the assumptions behind each number, the risks the team sees and a low number and a high number. Treat a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it usually points to exactly which requirement is unclear. From there tighten that section and request a revised number — the next version tends to be the one worth planning around.