Start with the reason this e government software solutions 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 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 the list as written.

Describe the scope as short scenarios: who does what, and what happens next. Equally important, state explicitly what is out of scope. An explicit list of exclusions removes more disagreement during acceptance than almost anything else in the document. Also mark which decisions are settled and which are still under discussion — the difference changes the price, and pretending everything is fixed helps no one.

Write down the hard constraints. The list covers the platforms and mvp development services involved, existing databases and their quality, compliance requirements, expected load, target platforms and infrastructure that is already decided. Where a date is genuinely fixed, say why: a good team will often cut the right scope to protect it, but not if the date is a secret.

Write down what the word done means laravel or node js for backend the important items. Acceptance criteria need not use formal language: a short list setting out the expected behaviour will do. That one addition shortens the sign-off process dramatically and eliminates the usual argument at handover.

To close, state what you want in the response. Require an itemised estimate, a written list of assumptions, whatever the team considers risky and a range rather than a single figure. Treat a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it normally identifies where your description is thin. Then tighten that section and ask again — the second estimate will be much more reliable.