If you're arriving at a valuation based on a multiple of some version of profit (SDE, EBIT, EBITDA, FCF, etc.), then the valuation of the equipment is largely irrelevant, at least in regards to the profit-based valuation. If the equipment is required to make said profit, then it's not any kind of a "bonus" on top of the value of future profits.

Obviously, the reality is a bit more nuanced than that. As was suggested, knowing the liquidation value of the equipment sets a floor for the value. It also may (or, more likely, may not) help with securing debt financing.

Even so, that's a separate way of evaluating an entity's value, not something that one should add to a valuation based on the NPV of the cash flows.

As a bonus piece of feedback, if a company has a large amount of equipment, then using EBITDA as the profit metric is going to be misleading. If it takes $3MM of equipment to run a business, you're going to have to maintain and replace that equipment on an ongoing basis, often on a level that's pretty close to the depreciation schedule. You need to take this into account, because it's a real expense.

I agree with ^redacted‌ comment.
I recommend developing a financial model. It will require all kinds of inputs including CapEx, depreciation, etc. You will be able to flush out whether the equipment is a liability or an `accretive asset.
A simple question: if you double sales, will you need to double the equipment? Can you afford?
My software is a ready-made tool for such analysis.