valuation
5. Valuation Report

Executive Summary
This report details the principles and methods for determining a valuation for Plumbline
The AI preconstruction copilot for commercial general contractors. It reads the drawing set, produces a quantified takeoff, prices it against the firm's own cost data, and assembles a bid-ready package the estimator reviews.
| Pre Money Valuation | $45.0M |
| Capital Raised | $15.0M |
| Post Money Valuation | $60.0M |
| Dilution | 25.0% |
| Method | Value | Weighting | Weighted value |
| Berkus Method 2022 | $40.0M | 10% | $4.0M |
| Risk Factor Summation Method | $46.0M | 15% | $6.9M |
| Scorecard Method | $49.0M | 15% | $7.4M |
| Venture Capital Method | $46.0M | 25% | $11.5M |
| Discounted Cash Flows Method | $43.0M | 15% | $6.4M |
| First Chicago Method | $44.0M | 20% | $8.8M |
| 100% | $45.0M |
Table of Contents
Principles & Methodology
Valuation Principles
Methodology
Base Value
Application of Methodology
Berkus Method
Risk Factor Summation Method
Scorecard Method
Venture Capital Method
Discounted Cash Flows Method
First Chicago Method
Disclaimer
4
5-7
8-12
13
14
15-16
17-18
19-21
22-23
24-25
26-29
30
Principles & Methodology

Valuation Principles:
A fair price both sides can explain
Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against reality. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream math updates.
Business first: We start with what exists today, not a model target. Product in market, real usage, paying customers, and unit economics drive the band. A method output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can justify a higher position in the band.
Market anchored: We reference current rounds, relevant comps, revenue multiples, and the cost of capital. Each data point has a source and a date so readers can judge freshness. Stale or non-comparable data is excluded. The market view informs both band selection and method checks.
Shared fairness : Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override a method, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies to everyone.
Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Band up or down one notch, weight shifts, and small input swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the evidence required.
Data with judgment: We prefer data, but early companies have gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.
Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the method pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a simple spreadsheet.
This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step
Valuation Principles:
The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.
| Principle | What we show | Section |
| Balanced inputs | Source list, dated assumptions, currency and units on every table | Scope and Sources |
| Business first | Stage table with evidence lines for product, team, traction, run rate, go to market, unit economics | Stage of Business |
| Market anchored | Market-band table plus seed comps with pre-money, round size, dilution, date, links | Market Conditions, Scorecard |
| Shared fairness | Single weighting model and one triangulation, with overrides documented | Weighting and Triangulation |
| Durable value | Two sensitivities: band up or down; weight shift internal vs market | Sensitivities |
| Data with judgment | Analyst notes where inputs are thin and what adjustment was made | Method footers |
| Transparent and repeatable | Standard method template: inputs box, calc box, output, caveat | Method pages, Exec Summary |
What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent methods, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.
Valuation Process
We value using a simple waterfall. We place the company on the stage map, read today’s market, set a fair range, then run methods to plot a point inside that range. That point drives round terms.
StageEvidence comes from what exists now. Product in users’ hands, team coverage and ownership, traction and retention, run rate and payback signals, and the current go to market motion. The stage sets the baseline for peers.
MarketWe look at funding climate and speed of round, exit activity and recent revenue multiples, plus macro and cost of capital. The band shifts the baseline to match current pricing.
Range This bracket is what a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Method outputs must sit inside it. If one lands outside, we explain and constrain.
Methods
Berkus credits core building blocks up to a cap.
Risk Factor starts at the midpoint and adjusts for 12 drivers.
Scorecard references recent comparable rounds.
VC Method works back from a sensible exit and required return.
Discounted Cash Flows needs a 1liner
First Chicago averages 3 scenarios of the DCF
ResultWeighted result = Σ(value × weight) = [Point].
Methodology
A valuation sits inside a range that a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Two readings set that range: the company’s stage, which is internal evidence of progress, and the market band, which is external conditions in the round environment. Both pull on the same fair price, from different sides.
Stage of business
Where the company sits on the startup curve. We score seven internal signals of progress. The stage sets the baseline against peers.
Product. What exists in users' hands and how stable it is.
Team. Who is on the field and how roles are covered.
Traction. Evidence that people want it.
Run rate. Current revenue level and path to profit.
Capital raised. How much outside capital and from whom.
Go to market. Channels in use and how repeatable they are.
Unit economics. CAC, margins, payback, and LTV quality.
Market band
Where the round sits in current market conditions. We read seven external signals. The band shifts the baseline up or down to match what the market is paying right now.
Funding climate. How active investors are and how fast rounds close.
Exit activity. Depth of buyers and recent outcomes.
Revenue multiples. Typical EV to ARR for comparable companies.
Competitive intensity. How crowded and strong the field is.
Regulatory support. Headwinds or tailwinds from rules and incentives.
Talent pool depth. Availability and cost of key hires.
Macro and cost of capital. Rates, liquidity, and risk appetite.
Methodology
The table below maps each internal signal to what an early, neutral, or late stage reading looks like in practice. The strongest cluster of signals sets the stage.
| Market band | Product | Team | Traction | Run rate | Capital raised | Go to market | Unit economics |
| Early stage | A basic prototype or demo tests if the idea works. | One or two founders cover all roles and responsibilities. | Early interest shows as waitlists, interviews, or beta sign-ups. | Revenue is negligible while learning. | Small angel or friends-and-family checks. | Founder-led sales and direct conversations. | Costs and value per user are unknown. |
| Neutral | A live MVP ships updates fast and collects real user feedback. | A core team forms with technical and commercial ownership defined. | First paying users engage consistently and form cohorts. | Recurring revenue grows and pricing stabilizes. | Seed fund or notable angels invest; hiring and go to market begin. | One repeatable channel with CAC and payback tracking. | Cohort data emerges; breakeven nears; payback shortens. |
| Late stage | A polished product with a roadmap and integrations ready to scale | Functional leads join, supported by lightweight management structures. | Retention strengthens and usage becomes stable and predictable. | Annualized revenue above $100k with a clear path to profit. | Larger rounds fund headcount, product depth, and scale. | Multi-channel playbook with strong, repeatable metrics | CAC stays below LTV; margins expand; efficiency improves. |
Methodology
The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We anchor the band to the strongest cluster of signals.
| Market band | Funding climate | Exit activity | Revenue-multiple benchmarks | Competitive intensity | Regulatory or policy support | Talent-pool depth | Macro tailwinds and cost of capital |
| Unfavorable | Deals sporadic, few committed investors, slow term sheets. | No recent exits; buyers scarce; pricing signals unclear. | Below 2x ARR for most. | Incumbents dominate; startups struggle for attention. | Active headwinds or legal risk create hurdles. | Specialist talent scarce, hiring slow, salaries spiking. | Rising rates and recession fears tighten lending and compress multiples. |
| Neutral | Steady flow of rounds with heavy diligence. | Occasional sub-$100m acquisitions show cautious liquidity. | 4x to 6x ARR for solid performers. | Crowded market with credible contenders. | Predictable rules with some grey areas. | Adequate local plus remote supply; budgets tight. | Neutral macro keeps capital available on prudent terms. |
| Favorable | Oversubscribed raises, multiple funds chasing. | Regular $500m+ exits and IPO chatter signal strong liquidity. | 10x ARR and above where optimism is high. | Winner-takes-most dynamics; fast movers scale quickly. | Incentives and clear approvals accelerate adoption. | Deep bench of experienced leaders; compensation stabilizes. | Low rates and strong flows unlock growth capital. |
Methodology
| Stage ↓ \ Band → | Band 1 | Band 2 | Band 3 | Band 4 | Band 5 |
| Pre-Seed | $0.5M - $1.5M | $1.0M - $2.0M | $2.0M - $4.0M | $3.5M - $7.0M | $6.0M - $14.0M |
| Early Seed | $1.0M - $3.0M | $2.0M - $4.0M | $4.5M - $8.5M | $7.5M - $15.5M | $14.5M - $34.5M |
| Seed | $1.5M - $3.5M | $2.5M - $5.5M | $6.5M - $11.5M | $10.5M - $22.5M | $21.0M - $49.0M |
| Late Seed | $2.0M - $5.0M | $3.5M - $7.5M | $8.0M - $15.0M | $13.5M - $28.5M | $27.5M - $63.5M |
| Early Series A | $2.5M - $6.5M | $5.0M - $11.0M | $13.5M - $24.5M | $24.0M - $50.0M | $51.5M - $120.5M |
| Series A | $4.0M - $9.0M | $7.5M - $15.5M | $19.0M - $35.0M | $34.5M - $71.5M | $73.5M - $171.5M |
| Late Series A | $5.0M - $11.0M | $9.5M - $19.5M | $24.5M - $45.5M | $44.5M - $92.5M | $95.5M - $223.5M |
Having determined the stage of business and band within that stage we use industry data to get a value range.
Methodology
After defining the range of value, we apply six valuation methods to triangulate where within that range Plumbline sits. These methods are weighted by stage: earlier stages weight internal methods more heavily, later stages weight external and forecasted methods.
Internal methodologies
- Berkus Method
- Risk Factor Summation Method
External methodologies
- Scorecard Valuation Method
- Venture Capital Method
Forecasted methodologies
- Discounted Cash Flow Method
- First Chicago Method
Method weighting by stage
Pre-seed
Seed
Series A
Base Value
We have identified that Plumbline stage of business fits into Band 4 of Series A round.
Giving it a value of $40.0M - $50.0M
Plumbline maps to Series A on the stage curve and Band 4 on market conditions. Product is live with 40 paying GCs, $2.8M ARR, 132% net revenue retention, and 3 ENR-400 logos, which is strong internal evidence for the stage. A healthy construction-tech funding climate and a deep set of strategic acquirers support an above-neutral band. Within the industry range for that cell we anchor a working base of $40M to $50M, with a midpoint of $45M.
Application of Methodology

Valuation Methods

Berkus Method
The Berkus Method is a widely used framework for valuing pre-revenue, early-stage startups where limited financial data is available. Developed by Dave Berkus in the mid-1990s for the technology sector, it provides a structured way to estimate value based on a company’s progress across key business risk areas rather than speculative forecasts.
The model assigns scores (typically 0 to 10) to five key factors, each weighted equally and multiplied by a predetermined dollar amount. Traditionally, the maximum assigned per factor was $500,000, yielding a total valuation cap of $2,500,000. In 2016, Berkus updated the model to recognize that industry, geography, and market conditions may warrant adjustments to the cap or weighting.
Strengths
Straightforward and well suited to early-stage assessments. Focuses on qualitative factors, allowing reviewers to consider elements beyond historic traction and forecasts, which are difficult to predict at early stages.
Limitations
Equal weighting across all factors can oversimplify. Subjective scoring increases the risk of bias. Business-model nuances may be missed, and accuracy depends on selecting appropriate industry benchmarks for the cap.
key evaluation criteria
Five business-risk factors. Each scored independently.
Sound Idea
Foundational value
Prototype
Reduces technical risk
Quality Management Team
Reduces execution risk
Strategic Relationships
Reduces market-entry risk
Product Rollout or Sales
Reduces go-to-market and scaling risk
Berkus Method
For the total value cap we use the upper bound of the band determined from our methodology above and divide by 5 to get the maximum value of each evaluation criteria.
| Value Driver | Value | Score (1-10) | Rationale | Assigned Value |
| Sound Idea | $10.0M | 9 | Preconstruction is a large, painful, underserved job. AI that reads drawing sets and prices bids is a clear, timely wedge into a $6.5B SAM. | $9.0M |
| Prototype | $10.0M | 8 | Product is live and in daily use by 40 paying GCs, well past prototype risk. Assembly-detection accuracy is strong and still improving. | $8.0M |
| Quality Management Team | $10.0M | 9 | Domain-native founders: ex-ENR preconstruction lead, ex-Autodesk and Procore computer vision, ex-Bluebeam product, plus AEC go-to-market leadership. | $9.0M |
| Strategic Relationships | $10.0M | 7 | Three ENR-400 enterprise logos and integration paths to Procore and Autodesk. Real relationships, still early in depth. | $7.0M |
| Product Rollout or Sales | $10.0M | 7 | Land-and-expand is working: $2.8M ARR, 132% net revenue retention, LTV to CAC improving from 1.2x to 5.4x. The scaling motion is still maturing. | $7.0M |
| Total | $50.0M | 40 | $40.0M |
Risk Factor Summation Method
The Risk Factor Summation Method (RFS) is a structured valuation framework for early-stage companies with some operational visibility but still facing significant uncertainty. It scores a set of risk categories from minus two (significant risk) to plus two (significant strength), applying adjustments to a base valuation drawn from comparable companies.
Each point adjustment carries a fixed monetary value, determined by taking the delta between the low and high of the value band and dividing it by the total number of points (48). The cumulative adjustment, positive or negative, is added to or subtracted from the base valuation to arrive at the final pre-money valuation.
This approach offers more granularity than purely qualitative models, capturing both business-specific and market-driven risks. It is most useful when a company has begun operations but is not yet mature enough for cash-flow-based models.
Strengths
Covers a wider range of business and market risks than Berkus or Scorecard, offering a more detailed view of both risks and strengths. The transparent adjustment process helps ensure investor alignment.
Limitations
Equal weight across all categories. Focused on risk exposure rather than opportunity upside. Relies on skilled judgment and a solid base valuation, which adds complexity.
risk categories assessed
Twelve categories. Each scored independently from negative two to positive two.
Management risk
-2 to +2Stage of business
-2 to +2Legislation, political risk
-2 to +2Manufacturing risk
-2 to +2Sales and marketing risk
-2 to +2Funding, capital raise risk
-2 to +2Competition risk
-2 to +2Technology risk
-2 to +2Litigation risk
-2 to +2International, geographic risk
-2 to +2Reputation risk
-2 to +2Potential for lucrative exit
-2 to +2Risk Factor Summation Method
The base valuation uses the midpoint of the value band. The value of a point is the delta between the low and high of the band divided by the total number of points (48). Per-risk scores aggregate to a single adjustment applied to the base.
| Risk | Score | Rationale |
| Management | +2 | Founders are domain-native: ex-ENR preconstruction lead as CEO, ex-Autodesk and Procore computer vision as CTO, ex-Bluebeam product as CPO. Rare depth for the category. |
| Stage of the business | +1 | Series A with product in market, 40 paying GCs, and $2.8M ARR. Past prototype risk, not yet at full scale. |
| Legislation, political risk | 0 | Construction estimating software carries no material regulatory or political exposure. Neutral. |
| Manufacturing risk | +1 | Pure software delivery with gross margin at 68% and rising to 78%. Low operational and delivery risk. |
| Sales and marketing risk | +1 | Land-and-expand is proven: net revenue retention 118% to 132%, LTV to CAC 1.2x to 5.4x. A repeatable motion is emerging. |
| Funding, capital raising risk | 0 | This $15M round funds the plan to EBITDA-positive in Year 5. Adequate, not overcapitalized. Neutral. |
| Competition risk | -1 | Crowded field: legacy takeoff tools, horizontal AI copilots, and point solutions. The wedge is real but contested. |
| Technology risk | +1 | Computer vision on drawing sets plus the firm's own historical cost data. Defensible, though model accuracy must keep improving. |
| Litigation risk | 0 | No known disputes, IP conflicts, or open claims. Neutral. |
| International risk | -1 | US-focused go-to-market with no international footprint yet. Expansion is upside but unproven, a near-term execution risk. |
| Reputation risk | +1 | Three ENR-400 enterprise logos already reference the product. Early brand credibility in a conservative buyer base. |
| Potential lucrative exit | 0 | A credible acquirer set exists in Procore, Autodesk, and Nemetschek, but no active process. Neutral today. |
Aggregate
| Total Score | +5 |
Pre-money build
| Value of a point | $0.21M |
| Adjustment to base | +$1.0M |
| Base value | $45.0M |
| Pre-money value | $46.0M |
Scorecard Method
The Scorecard Valuation Method, also known as the Bill Payne Method, is one of the most widely used approaches by angel investors for valuing early-stage companies. It benchmarks the target against comparable startups that have recently raised funding, adjusting the average valuation based on company-specific strengths and weaknesses across weighted factors.
We identify three comparable companies in the same geography, sector, and stage, and average their pre-money valuations. The target is then scored against the benchmark across multiple weighted factors, assigning a multiplier where 1.0x equals the comparable benchmark. The weighted scores produce the adjusted pre-money valuation.
Strengths
Straightforward and easy to apply, with weightings that reflect the importance of each factor. Widely used by angel investors and early-stage funds.
Limitations
Requires skill and judgment to score factors correctly. May miss certain risks or unique business aspects. Does not fully consider external market conditions.
key evaluation factors
Seven weighted factors. Multipliers applied to the comparable benchmark.
Strength of the Management Team
30%Size of the Opportunity
20%Product / Technology
20%Competitive Environment
15%Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships
5%Need for Additional Investment
5%Other (traction, NPS, customer feedback)
5%Scorecard Method
Below are the 3 identified companies for comparison. Each should fall within the stage of business and band identified above to be a fair comparison for this method
Alto Takeoff
AI quantity takeoff and bid automation for commercial general contractors.
Capital Raised: $11.0MDate Raised: Q4 2024
Series A · PitchBook
Benchmark Precon
Preconstruction estimating and cost automation platform for GCs.
Capital Raised: $12.0MDate Raised: Q1 2025
Series A · Crunchbase
Coridian
Construction cost intelligence and takeoff for general contractors.
Capital Raised: $11.5MDate Raised: Q3 2024
Series A · PitchBook
Scorecard Method
Weighted factor scores and same-stage comparable inputs produce the multiplier and adjusted pre-money valuation.
| Weighting | Alto Takeoff | Benchmark Precon | Coridian | |
| Capital Raised at relevant stage | $11.0M | $12.0M | $11.5M | |
| Assumed dilution | 19% | 19% | 19% | |
| Implied valuation at raise | $46.0M | $50.0M | $48.0M | |
| Strength of the Management Team | 30% | 1.10x | 1.10x | 1.10x |
| Size of the Opportunity | 20% | 1.05x | 1.05x | 1.05x |
| Product / Technology | 20% | 1.00x | 1.00x | 1.00x |
| Competitive Environment | 15% | 0.90x | 0.90x | 0.90x |
| Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships | 5% | 0.95x | 0.95x | 0.95x |
| Need for Additional Investment | 5% | 0.90x | 0.90x | 0.90x |
| Other | 5% | 1.10x | 1.10x | 1.10x |
| Total | 100% | 1.02x | 1.02x | 1.02x |
| Weighting | 34% | 33% | 33% | |
| Weighted Value | $16.0M | $16.8M | $16.2M | |
| Pre-Money Value | $49.0M | |||
Venture Capital Method
The Venture Capital Method, also known as the Exit Event Method, values a startup based on a future liquidity event such as an IPO or acquisition. It is widely used by venture investors for pre-revenue or early-stage companies with limited financial history.
We start with a credible exit value drawn from comparable exits in the target sector. Each comparable carries a risk-adjustment factor reflecting the probability of the target reaching that scale, and a weighting reflecting how representative it is. The sum across comps gives a probability-weighted exit value that serves as the anchor.
A required return multiple, calibrated to investment risk, time horizon, and exit probability, then converts the exit value to today’s pre-money: Value = Exit Value divided by Required Return Multiple. The method focuses on return expectations and does not incorporate interim operational performance.
Strengths
Aligns valuation with investor return expectations. Useful for pre-revenue and early-stage companies. Transparent, easy-to-follow calculation framework.
Limitations
Highly sensitive to exit assumptions. Overlooks interim execution risk and capital needs before exit. Does not capture free cash flow generated along the way.
method steps
From comparable exits to a pre-money valuation in six steps.
Estimate exit value
From compsApply risk adjustment
Per compWeight by representativeness
By stage and fitSum to probability-weighted exit
AnchorApply required return multiple
IRR or multipleDerive pre-money valuation
OutputVenture Capital Method
Three comparable stage exits in Band 4 are adjusted for the probability of Plumbline reaching that scale, weighted by representativeness, then converted to today’s pre-money using the required return multiple.
| Comparable | Exit Value | Adjustment | Rationale | Weighting | Consideration |
Procore Technologies IPO · 2021 NYSE: PCOR | $420M | 0.90x | Category-defining vertical construction SaaS, public at scale. Supports an ~8x forward-revenue exit on $48M Year-5 ARR. | 40% | $151.2M |
BuildingConnected Acquisition by Autodesk · 2018 Autodesk M&A | $400M | 0.95x | Preconstruction bid-management platform acquired by a strategic. Closest functional comp to the takeoff-to-bid wedge. | 35% | $133.0M |
Bluebeam Acquisition by Nemetschek · 2014 Nemetschek Group | $500M | 0.85x | Estimator-workflow incumbent acquired by a strategic. Higher headline outcome, lower probability of matching that scale. | 25% | $106.3M |
| Probability-weighted exit value | $390.5M | ||||
| Return Factor | 6.4x |
| Pre-Money Valuation | $46.0M |
| Less Capital Raised | $15.0M |
| Post-Money Valuation | $61.0M |
Discounted Cash Flows Method
The DCF Method estimates valuation as the present value of expected future cash flows. It is most useful for businesses with stable, predictable earnings and a credible operating history.
We forecast free cash flows over five years and add a terminal value computed via the Perpetuity Growth Method or a comparable P/E multiple. Each cash flow is discounted at a rate that reflects risk and stage.
The sum of discounted cash flows plus the discounted terminal gives enterprise value, which adjusts for net debt and cash to arrive at equity.
Strengths
Intrinsic, rooted in expected financial performance. Suited to established businesses with historical financials and forward visibility.
Limitations
Highly sensitive to assumptions. Less applicable for early-stage or pre-revenue companies where forecasts lack reliability.
method steps
From forecast cash flows to equity value in six steps.
Forecast free cash flows
5-year horizonApply discount rate
Cost of capitalDetermine terminal value
PGM or P/EDiscount each year to today
Year by yearSum present values
Enterprise valueAdjust for net debt and cash
Equity valueDiscounted Cash Flows Method
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted at the cost of capital to derive enterprise value. Discounted years one through five plus the discounted terminal sum to today’s value.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |
| Free cash flow | ($1.8M) | ($2.5M) | ($2.2M) | ($1.0M) | $4.5M |
| Earnings, Year 5 | $5.7M | ||||
| P/E ratio | 40x | ||||
| Terminal value | $228M | ||||
| Discount rate | 38% | ||||
| Present value of cash flow | ($1.3M) | ($1.3M) | ($0.8M) | ($0.3M) | $0.9M |
| Present value of terminal value | $45.6M | ||||
| Enterprise value | $43.0M | ||||
First Chicago Method
The First Chicago Method is a scenario-based valuation approach that combines DCF and comparable company analysis. It evaluates a business by modeling three potential futures: best case, base case, and worst case.
Each scenario flexes free cash flow by a defined percentage. The DCF method runs on each scenario, producing three values. Probabilities are assigned across the three scenarios and must sum to 100%. The output is the probability-weighted average of the three DCF results.
Strengths
Captures a range of outcomes with probabilistic weighting. Useful for later-stage companies where multiple scenarios can be modelled with credible inputs.
Limitations
Sensitive to both scenario assumptions and probability weighting. Requires significant data and effort. Not suitable for early-stage or pre-revenue companies.
method steps
Five steps from base DCF to a probability-weighted value.
Build base case
DCF defaultDefine best case
FCF upliftDefine worst case
FCF haircutAssign probabilities
Sum to 100%Compute weighted average
Probability-weighted DCFFirst Chicago Method
Best, base, and worst DCF cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the value.
| Scenario | Change in Free Cash | Probability | Value | Weighted Value |
| Best case | +55% | 25% | $75.0M | $18.8M |
| Base case | 50% | $43.0M | $21.5M | |
| Worst case | -45% | 25% | $15.0M | $3.8M |
| Value | $44.0M |
First Chicago Best Case
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |
| Free Cash Flow | ($1.3M) | ($1.5M) | ($0.5M) | $1.5M | $9.0M |
| Earnings Year 5 | $9.3M | ||||
| PE ratio | 40x | ||||
| Terminal Value | $372M | ||||
| Discount Value | 38% | ||||
| Present Value of Cash Flow | ($0.9M) | ($0.8M) | ($0.2M) | $0.4M | $1.8M |
| Present Value of Terminal Value | $74.3M | ||||
| Value | $75.0M |
First Chicago Worst Case
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |
| Free Cash Flow | ($2.5M) | ($3.5M) | ($3.5M) | ($2.5M) | $1.5M |
| Earnings Year 5 | $2.5M | ||||
| PE ratio | 40x | ||||
| Terminal Value | $100M | ||||
| Discount Value | 38% | ||||
| Present Value of Cash Flow | ($1.8M) | ($1.8M) | ($1.3M) | ($0.7M) | $0.3M |
| Present Value of Terminal Value | $20.0M | ||||
| Value | $15.0M |
Concluded Value

Disclaimer
This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.
This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.
The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.
Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.
Budgets and forecasts relate to future events and are based on assumptions that may not remain valid for the whole or part of the relevant period. Consequently this information cannot be relied upon to the same
extent as that derived from audited accounts for completed accounting periods. We express no opinion as to how closely the actual results will correspond to those forecasts used in this presentation.
Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions
on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure
assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.
The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual
Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.