Warren Equity Partners — AI Intern Assessment

The Assignment

You are a junior analyst on the Warren Equity Partners transaction team. The firm is evaluating a potential leveraged buyout of Apex Infrastructure Services, a hypothetical provider of field inspection, maintenance, and repair services for power, utility, and water infrastructure assets across the southeastern United States.

Your job is to work up the deal. That means building the financial model, pressure-testing the assumptions, running the comps, and writing up your recommendation — using every tool available to you to do it well and do it fast.

There is no separate modeling section and AI section. The tools are how you work, not a thing you demonstrate at the end. We want to see how you actually operate.

What to Submit

A deal workbook (model, comps, and sensitivity analysis — one file)
An IC memo addressed to Dr. Park (1–2 pages, Word or PDF)
A process note appended to the memo: how you used AI, which prompts were most useful, where it fell short, and what you corrected by hand

Tools

Use whatever combination of tools helps you do the best work — including Claude integrated into your spreadsheet environment, Claude Code, and the Claude API. You are not required to use all of them. You will be evaluated on the quality of the output and the judgment behind it, not the number of tools you touched.

All hardcoded assumptions must be clearly labeled and separated from formulas
Every AI-generated output in your deliverables — numbers, text, or structure — must be something you understand and can defend
Email deliverables to Dr. Park with subject: AI Intern Assessment – [Your Name]

Part 1

The Deal — Apex Infrastructure Services

Apex Infrastructure Services provides mission-critical field services — inspection, preventive maintenance, and emergency repair — to utilities, municipalities, and industrial operators managing aging power and water infrastructure. The business is contract-driven with high renewal rates and a fragmented competitive landscape. Management has approached the market seeking a growth partner.

Financials

Metric	Value	Notes
LTM Revenue	$185M	Last twelve months
LTM EBITDA	$37.0M	20.0% EBITDA margin
LTM Capex	$5.5M	~3.0% of revenue
D&A	$4.5M	Included in EBITDA bridge
Net Working Capital	$14M	Contract billing-driven; stable
Proposed Entry Multiple	10.0x EV/EBITDA	Base case; subject to your analysis
Management Rollover	$8M	Included in equity stack

Proposed Financing Structure

Total leverage: 5.0x LTM EBITDA (blended)
Senior Secured Term Loan: 3.5x EBITDA — SOFR + 375bps, 5% annual amortization
Subordinated / Mezzanine Debt: 1.5x EBITDA — 12% PIK
Equity check: remainder after debt and management rollover
Cash sweep: all excess FCF applied to debt in priority order
SOFR base assumption: 5.25%

Management's Operating Case (Years 1–5)

Assumption	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	Y5	Notes
Revenue Growth	7%	7%	8%	8%	6%	Organic + contract renewals
EBITDA Margin	20.0%	20.5%	21.0%	21.5%	22.0%	Labor efficiency + scale
Capex (% Rev)	3.0%	2.8%	2.8%	2.5%	2.5%	Asset-light model
NWC Change	1.0%	1.0%	0.8%	0.8%	0.8%	% of revenue
Tax Rate	25%	25%	25%	25%	25%	Assume stable

Exit

Assume a Year 5 exit
Base case: 10.0x EV/EBITDA exit multiple
Transaction fees: 1.5% of EV at entry and exit
Build your own view on the exit multiple range and justify it in your memo

Part 2 — Deliverable 1

The Deal Workbook

Build a single integrated workbook covering the full deal analysis. Use AI tools throughout — to structure the model, check your logic, generate formulas, or pressure-test assumptions. At minimum it should contain:

Section A

Sources & Uses / Capital Structure

Full S&U at entry; all debt tranches; equity check; assumptions on labeled Inputs tab.

Section B

5-Year Operating Model & Debt Schedule

P&L through net income; unlevered & levered FCF; complete debt schedule with PIK accrual and cash sweep.

Section C

Returns Analysis

Sponsor IRR and MoIC at base case; equity waterfall from exit EV through proceeds split.

Section D

Comparable Company Analysis

EV/EBITDA and EV/Revenue; mean, median, IQR; implied valuation range vs. entry multiple.

Comp Set

comps = [
    {"name": "GridWorks Services",    "ev": 720,  "ebitda": 130, "revenue": 610, "net_debt": 195, "growth": 0.07},
    {"name": "Vantage Field Co.",     "ev": 490,  "ebitda": 88,  "revenue": 420, "net_debt": 130, "growth": 0.06},
    {"name": "Ironclad Utility Grp.", "ev": 1050, "ebitda": 195, "revenue": 890, "net_debt": 280, "growth": 0.09},
    {"name": "Summit InfraServ",      "ev": 380,  "ebitda": 62,  "revenue": 295, "net_debt": 95,  "growth": 0.05},
    {"name": "Clearpath Solutions",   "ev": 860,  "ebitda": 155, "revenue": 710, "net_debt": 215, "growth": 0.08},
]

Sensitivity Analysis

Build at least two sensitivity tables. Suggested axes: exit multiple vs. revenue CAGR (output: IRR); entry multiple vs. EBITDA margin (output: MoIC). The base case should be clearly identifiable in each table.

Part 3 — Deliverable 2

IC Memo + Process Note

Write a concise Investment Committee memo addressed to Dr. Park. Length: 1–2 pages. It should read like something you'd actually hand a partner before a meeting — not a model summary.

Memo Contents

Recommendation: Should Warren Equity Partners proceed at a 10.0x entry? Why or why not?
Key investment merits and the two or three things that would have to be true for this deal to work
Primary risks and how you'd want to diligence them
Your view on the valuation — does the comp set support the entry multiple?
Return summary at base case, upside, and downside

Process Note (appended to memo)

Which AI tools you used at each stage and specifically how
Two or three prompts that were most useful — paste them verbatim
Where the AI output needed the most correction or judgment from you
One thing you would do differently next time

What We're Evaluating

Financial Thinking

Does the model work, and does it reflect sound judgment about how this business and this deal actually operate?

Communication

Is the memo clear and direct — would a partner read it and know exactly where you stand and why?

Tool Fluency

Did you use the available tools to move faster and think more clearly, or did you get in your own way?

Judgment

Can you tell the difference between what the AI got right and what it got wrong — and did you act on that distinction?

We look forward to reviewing your work. Good luck.

Transaction GroupAI Intern