Coppervale Mechanical Services
The business that runs on five people's memories
A $12M contractor's owner wants to sell. Three structured interviews surface what a buyer would find: every bid over $50K, the bonding line, and the top customer relationship all run through one man.
Demonstration data. Every company, person, and transcript in these case studies is fictional, and none is a client engagement. Every figure is real output from a reproducible MCOS run, graded against a written answer key before publication.
64/100
Owner-dependency score
$2.42M
Implied dependency discount, illustrative
$1.94M
Recoverable through documentation and delegation
3
Personal guarantees surfaced
The engagement
The owner's version
Frank Osei founded Coppervale in 1998 and a roll-up came calling in April. His own read: the service side runs itself, renewals are automatic, and the office would be fine without him. The interview records what only he does: pricing every bid over $50,000, holding the Mercer & Lowe relationship worth 31% of revenue, and personally indemnifying the $5M surety bonding line. His succession plan has never been said out loud.
The operations reality
Denise Kowalski, nine years running service operations, corrects the record. Renewals are not automatic: roughly $1.4M of the $2.4M agreement book renews because she personally calls sixty days out, and she schedules vacations around the renewal calendar. When Frank was out ten days last fall, a $180,000 bid died unpriced in his inbox. And Marv Bell, the only technician for 34 legacy controls sites, retires April 30, 2027, with no backup named.
The money picture
Tomas Rivera, the controller, quantifies the exposure a buyer's diligence would find: a $540,000 equipment note and a $250,000 operating line, both personally guaranteed by Frank, plus the bonding indemnity. About 70% of revenue, $8.4M, flows through estimates only Frank can price. Tomas's own change-order reconciliation, a private spreadsheet run on alternate Fridays, recovers about $65,000 a year that nobody else has ever billed.
What the instrument would not claim
- The valuation frame is labeled provisional and illustrative on the report itself: $12M revenue times a stated 0.9x sector multiple gives a $10.80M base, and the 64/100 dependency score implies a 22% discount. It is a lens for the conversation, never an appraisal.
- Only figures stated in the transcripts appear as facts. The audit grader verifies every dollar in the report traces to a stated figure; anything else fails the run.
- The guarantee harvest captures amounts only with the guarantee language verbatim in the source. All three exposures, $540K, $250K, and the $5M indemnity, carry their transcript evidence.
Numbers of record
| Owner-dependency score | 64/100 |
| Base valuation frame (illustrative) | $10.80M ($12M x 0.9 stated multiple) |
| Implied dependency discount | 22% ($2.42M) |
| Post-audit value frame | $8.38M |
| Recoverable via remediation | ~$1.94M |
| Customer concentration | Mercer & Lowe 31% ($3.7M), Sagecrest 14% ($1.7M) |
| Personal exposure | $540K note + $250K line + $5M bonding indemnity |
Run of record
- Harness
- audits/5_organizational/run_coppervale_kpa.py
- Grade
- 12/12 answer-key claims hold
- Verified
- mcos-core 58ec0a8 on 2026-08-14
Deterministic rule-mode run of the production Key Person Audit pipeline on the three interview transcripts. Same input, same numbers, every run.
Run Key Person Audit on your own transcripts
The same pipeline that produced every number on this page, priced per run, with the same grounding guards on.
