We are often asked to re-quote a project after another developer has already given a figure. The single most common problem is not that the other quote was too high or too low. It is that it was one line.
"Development of management system — GHS 30,000."
That is not a quote. It is the opening of an argument.
What should be itemised
A quote you can hold someone to breaks the work down:
- Discovery and scope — what will be produced, and when it is signed off
- Each module, priced separately, so you can defer what is not urgent
- Data migration — from what, how many records, tested how many times
- Training — who is trained, for how long, and what documentation you keep
- Post-launch support — what is included, for how long, what happens after
- Hosting and running costs — annual, stated plainly
The questions a vague quote hides
When those lines are missing, the disagreements arrive later: whether migration was included, whether training the second branch costs extra, whether year two hosting was in the price.
Fixed price or hourly?
Both can be fair. Fixed price suits well-defined scope and puts estimation risk on the developer — expect a contingency in the number. Hourly suits genuinely exploratory work but needs a cap and regular reporting.
What is not fair is a fixed price quoted before anyone understands the scope. That number is a guess, and someone pays for the gap — usually you, through change requests, or the developer, through corners cut.
Ask for the breakdown. A developer who cannot produce one has not thought the project through.
