DEF 14A 1 tpc-20180413xdef14a.htm DEF 14A 2018 DEF 14A - Proxy Statement



 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



SCHEDULE 14A











Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.     )



Filed by the Registrant  



Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  



Check the appropriate box:



Preliminary Proxy Statement



Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))



Definitive Proxy Statement



Definitive Additional Materials



Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12



TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)





(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)



Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):



No fee required.



Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.



(1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:



 

 



(2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:



 

 

 

(3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):



 

 



(4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:



 

 



(5)

Total fee paid:



 

 



Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

 

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.



(1)

Amount Previously Paid:



 

 



(2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:



 

 



(3)

Filing Party:



 

 



(4)

Date Filed:



 

 

  

  

  

 


 

 

TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION

15901 Olden Street

Sylmar, California 91342





April 13, 2018



Dear Shareholder:

 

You are cordially invited to attend the Tutor Perini Corporation 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Annual Meeting will be held at our corporate headquarters, 15901 Olden Street, Sylmar, California, on May 23, 2018 at 11:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time.



Details of the business to be conducted at the Annual Meeting are provided in the enclosed Notice of 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and proxy statement.



Your vote is very important to us. We hope that you are able to participate, either by voting in person or by other acceptable means as described in the attached proxy statement.



Thank you for your ongoing support of Tutor Perini Corporation.







 



 



Sincerely,



 

Picture 11



Ronald N. Tutor



Chairman & Chief Executive Officer







 

 


 

 

TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION

15901 Olden Street

Sylmar, California 91342



NOTICE OF 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS





 

 



 

 



 

DATE:

  

Wednesday, May 23, 2018



 

TIME:

  

11:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time



 

LOCATION:

  

15901 Olden Street

Sylmar, California 91342



 

MEETING AGENDA:

  

1.     Elect each of the 12 directors named in the accompanying proxy statement for a one-year term expiring at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders;



 



  

2.     Ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP, independent registered public accountants, as auditors of the Company for the year ending December 31, 2018;



 



  

3.     Approve the adoption of the new Tutor Perini Corporation Omnibus Incentive Plan; and



 



  

4.     Advisory (non-binding) vote on the Company’s executive compensation.



 

RECORD DATE:

  

Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 29, 2018 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting and any postponement or adjournment thereof.



 

PROXY VOTING:

  

Your vote is very important. We urge you to read this proxy statement and submit your proxy or voting instructions as soon as possible. You may vote your shares over the Internet at www.proxyvote.com, telephonically by dialing 1-800-690-6903, or if you requested to receive printed proxy materials, via your enclosed proxy card. If the shares you own are held in “street name” by a bank or brokerage firm, your bank or brokerage firm will provide a Notice of Availability of Proxy Materials, or, if you request them to do so, they will provide you a printed set of proxy materials together with a voting instruction form, which you may use to direct how your shares will be voted.





 



 



By order of the Board of Directors,



 

Picture 8



John D. Barrett, Secretary



April 13, 2018

Sylmar, California



Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 23, 2018: The proxy statement and 2017 Annual Report are available at investors.tutorperini.com/events-calendar/proxy-voting.  

 

 


 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS





 



 

INTRODUCTION

INFORMATION REGARDING THE ANNUAL MEETING

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Board of Directors

Corporate Governance

Report of the Audit Committee

12 

Report of the Compensation Committee

15 

Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions

16 

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

17 

PROPOSAL 2: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

18 

PROPOSAL 3: APPROVAL TO ADOPT THE NEW TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN TO EFFECT THE MERGER OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN AND THE TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

19 

PROPOSAL 4: ADVISORY (NON-BINDING) VOTE ON TUTOR PERINI’S EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

25 

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

26 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

26 

Executive Compensation

42 

CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure

54 

Director Compensation

55 

OWNERSHIP OF COMMON STOCK BY DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

57 

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

58 

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

60 

OTHER MATTERS

60 

HOUSEHOLDING OF ANNUAL MEETING MATERIALS

60 

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

60 

  

  





 

 


 

 

TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION

15901 Olden Street

Sylmar, California 91342



PROXY STATEMENT



April 13, 2018



INTRODUCTION



This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Tutor Perini Corporation (the “Company,” “Tutor Perini,” “we,” “us” or “our”) of proxies for use in voting at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“Annual Meeting”) to be held at our corporate headquarters, 15901 Olden Street, Sylmar, California, on May 23, 2018, at 11:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time, and any adjournment or postponement thereof, for the purposes set forth in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Only shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 29, 2018 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting and any adjournments or postponements thereof. As of March 29, 2018, the Company had 49,913,003 shares of Common Stock outstanding. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote.



At the meeting, our shareholders will consider and vote on the following matters:



·

Proposal 1, for the election of each of the 12 nominees for director, requires the affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting. You may vote FOR any or all director nominees or WITHHOLD your vote from any or all of the director nominees.



We recommend a vote FOR the election of each director nominee.



·

Proposal 2, for ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s independent auditors for 2018, requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal at the Annual Meeting.



We recommend a vote FOR the ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP.



·

Proposal 3, for the approval of the new Tutor Perini Corporation Omnibus Incentive Plan, requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal at the Annual Meeting.



We recommend a vote FOR the approval of the new Tutor Perini Corporation Omnibus Incentive Plan.



·

Proposal 4 is an advisory (non-binding) vote to approve the Company’s executive compensation, as disclosed in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” This proposal is advisory in nature, which means that the vote is not binding upon the Company. However, the Board and the Compensation Committee will consider the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast “FOR” the proposal as approval of the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers as described in this Proxy Statement.



Since 2017, the Company and the Compensation Committee have made considerable improvements with regard to executive compensation, directly in response to various concerns expressed by shareholders and independent proxy advisors. These areas of improvement include diversification of performance metrics, increasing the length of performance periods for long-term incentive compensation, reductions of share pledging, linking CEO pay more closely to performance and better explaining the level of CEO pay, among others (see details starting on page 29). The improvements demonstrate the Company’s regard for its shareholders’ opinions and its willingness to effect changes necessary to warrant shareholder support for its executive compensation.



We recommend a vote FOR the advisory vote to approve executive compensation.





On April 13, 2018, proxy materials for the Annual Meeting, including this proxy statement and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 were made available over the Internet to shareholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. A Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials indicating how to access our proxy materials over the Internet was first sent, or provided, to shareholders on April 13, 2018.



1

 


 

 

INFORMATION REGARDING THE ANNUAL MEETING



Admission to the Annual Meeting



You are entitled to attend the Annual Meeting if you were a shareholder of record or a beneficial owner of our Common Stock on the record date. If you are a shareholder of record, you may be asked to present valid picture identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, for admission to the Annual Meeting. Seating and parking are limited.



If your shares are registered in the name of a bank or brokerage firm (your record holder), you may be asked to provide proof of beneficial ownership as of the record date, such as a brokerage account statement, a copy of the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or voting instruction form provided by your bank, broker or other holder of record, or other similar evidence of ownership, as well as picture identification, for admission. If you wish to be able to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you should obtain a legal proxy from your brokerage firm, bank or other holder of record and present it to the inspector of elections with your ballot at the Annual Meeting.



Proxies and Voting Procedures



You may vote your shares over the Internet at www.proxyvote.com or telephonically by dialing 1-800-690-6903, as discussed in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials mailed to shareholders of record. Proxies submitted via the Internet or by telephone must be received by 8:59 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time on May 22, 2018. You may request a printed copy of the proxy materials by following the procedures set forth in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, and you may vote your shares by following the instructions on the enclosed proxy card.



If the shares you own are held in “street name” by a bank or brokerage firm, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of such shares, and your bank or brokerage firm will provide you a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, or a printed set of proxy materials together with a voting instruction form, which you may use to direct how your shares will be voted. In order to vote your shares, you must follow the voting instructions forwarded to you by, or on behalf of, that organization. Brokerage firms, banks and other fiduciaries or nominees are required to request voting instructions for shares they hold on behalf of customers and others. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank or other nominee or fiduciary how to vote, and you are also invited to attend the Annual Meeting. We encourage you to provide instructions to your broker, bank or other nominee or fiduciary to vote your shares. Since a beneficial owner is not the record shareholder, you may not vote the shares in person at the Annual Meeting, unless you obtain a legal proxy from the broker, bank or other nominee or fiduciary that holds your shares giving you the right to vote the shares at the meeting.



Electronic Availability of Proxy Statement and 2017 Annual Report



As permitted by Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules, we are making this proxy statement and our 2017 Annual Report available to shareholders electronically via the Internet at investors.tutorperini.com/events-calendar/proxy-voting. On April 13, 2018, we began mailing to our shareholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials containing instructions on how to access this proxy statement and our 2017 Annual Report and how to vote online. If you received that notice, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials, unless you request one by following the instructions contained in the notice. We believe that providing our proxy materials over the Internet increases the ease and ability of our shareholders to connect with the information they need and reduces the environmental impact of our Annual Meeting.



Quorum



The presence, in person or by proxy, of outstanding shares of Common Stock representing a majority of the shares entitled to vote is necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting. Shares that reflect abstentions or broker non-votes will be counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting.



Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes



An “abstention” occurs when a shareholder sends in a proxy with explicit instructions to decline to vote regarding a particular matter. For purposes of establishing a quorum, abstentions in person and proxies received but marked as abstentions as to any or all matters to be voted on count as present.



If your shares are held in “street name” and you do not return your proxy, your brokerage firm may vote your shares for you under certain circumstances. Brokerage firms have authority under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) to vote customers’ unvoted shares on some routine matters. If you do not give a proxy to your brokerage firm to vote your shares, your brokerage firm

2

 


 

 

may either vote your shares on routine matters or leave your shares unvoted. Votes that cannot be cast by brokerage firms on non‑routine matters will be “broker non-votes.” Of the proposals contained herein, only Proposal 2 is considered a routine matter.



Regardless of whether you are a record holder of your shares or hold your shares in “street name,” we encourage you to provide voting instructions to your brokerage firm. This ensures your shares will be voted at the meeting according to your instructions.



Abstentions and broker non-votes have no effect on any of the proposals discussed in this proxy statement, except for Proposal 3. For the purpose of Proposal 3, abstentions will have the same effect as votes against the proposal.



Proxy Solicitation



In addition to solicitation by mail, our directors, officers, and employees may solicit proxies from Tutor Perini shareholders by telephone, facsimile or other electronic means of communication. These persons will not receive additional or special compensation for such solicitation services. The Company also has retained the services of Alliance Advisors, LLC to assist as needed in the proxy preparation, review and solicitation process for a fee of approximately $27,500 plus reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket costs. Furthermore, we pay the cost of soliciting proxies, which may include the reimbursement of brokers’, banks’ and other nominees’ expenses for sending proxy materials and obtaining voting instructions from their customers.



Revocation of Proxies



If you execute and return a form of proxy or vote electronically in accordance with the instructions provided in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, your proxy may be revoked at any time before it is voted by providing written notice to our Secretary, by the subsequent execution and delivery of another proxy, or by voting in person at the Annual Meeting. Please note that if you have instructed your broker to vote your shares, the options for revoking your proxy described above do not apply and you must, instead, follow the directions provided by your broker to change those instructions.



Adjournments and Postponements



In accordance with the Company’s by-laws, the Annual Meeting may be adjourned or postponed, including for the purpose of soliciting additional proxies, by action of the presiding officer of the Annual Meeting. Additionally, the Annual Meeting may be postponed and rescheduled by the Board. There may be no notice of the time, date and place of the adjourned meeting, other than by announcement made at the Annual Meeting, regardless of whether or not a quorum is present. Any adjournment or postponement of the Annual Meeting for the purpose of soliciting additional proxies will allow the Company’s shareholders who have already sent their proxies to revoke them any time prior to their use at the Annual Meeting as adjourned or postponed.

  

3

 


 

 

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS



BOARD OF DIRECTORS



The Company has a declassified Board of Directors. As such, the terms of all current members of the Board of Directors will expire at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders on May 23, 2018.



The Board of Directors currently consists of 11 directors, with 8 determined to be independent. The Board has nominated all 11 current directors and is nominating an additional director, Dr. Michael Horodniceanu, contingent upon shareholder election, to serve until the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. In accordance with our by-laws, each director nominee so elected will serve a one-year term expiring at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, unless they resign or are removed before their term expires, or until their successor has been duly elected and qualified.



The following individuals are the nominees for election to the Board:







 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Name

 

Age

 

Director Since

 

Independent

Ronald N. Tutor

 

77

 

1997

 

 

Peter Arkley

 

63

 

2000

 

Sidney J. Feltenstein

 

77

 

2013

 

 

James A. Frost

 

65

 

2015

 

 

Michael Horodniceanu

 

73

 

 

Michael R. Klein

 

76

 

1997

 

Robert C. Lieber

 

63

 

2014

 

Dennis D. Oklak

 

64

 

2017

 

Raymond R. Oneglia

 

70

 

2000

 

Dale Anne Reiss

 

70

 

2014

 

Donald D. Snyder

 

70

 

2008

 

Dickran M. Tevrizian, Jr.

 

77

 

2011

 



Detailed information about the Board’s determination of director independence is provided in the “Director Independence” section starting on page 8.



The principal occupation, business experience and educational background of each director nominee are set forth below:



Ronald N. Tutor has served as our Chief Executive Officer since March 2000, as Chairman of the Board since July 1999, and as a director since January 1997. Mr. Tutor also served as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tutor-Saliba Corporation (“Tutor-Saliba”), a privately held California corporation engaged in the construction industry, until Tutor-Saliba merged with the Company in September 2008. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Southern California. With over 20 years at the Company and over 55 years in the industry, Mr. Tutor brings to our Board an industry acknowledged leadership role and in-depth knowledge of our Company and the construction industry. Mr. Tutor holds a Bachelor of Science in Finance from the University of Southern California.



Peter Arkley has served as a director since May 2000. Since June 2011, he has served as Senior Managing Director, Construction Services Group of Alliant Insurance Services, an insurance and bonding brokerage firm, where he is responsible for the development and implementation of the construction business and financial strategy. More recently, Mr. Arkley was appointed to oversee Alliant Specialty Group, which includes aviation, agribusiness, public entity, health care, real estate, energy and marine, executive risk and construction. From 1994 to 2008, he served as the Chairman/CEO of AON’s United States Construction Services Group, an insurance and bonding brokerage firm, and from 2008 until June 2011 he served as the Managing Principal/CEO of AON’s Global Construction Group. He is also a director of the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association, a non-profit organization. Mr. Arkley has extensive knowledge and expertise in insurance surety and financial service markets. Mr. Arkley provides the Board insight on risk management and financial service matters. Mr. Arkley holds a Bachelor of Science in Finance from Wagner College.



Sidney J. Feltenstein has served as a director since November 2013 and is a Senior Operating Partner of Sentinel Capital Partners. He is the retired chairman and CEO of Yorkshire Global Restaurants, Inc., the holding company for A&W Restaurants and Long John Silver’s, which he founded in 1994. Prior to creating Yorkshire Global Restaurants, Mr. Feltenstein spent 19 years with Dunkin’ Donuts in both operations and marketing, the last 12 of which he spent as chief marketing officer. In 1992, he left Dunkin’ Donuts to become executive vice president of worldwide marketing for Burger King Corporation. Mr. Feltenstein serves as a director of

4

 


 

 

Fazoli’s, The HoneyBaked Ham Company, Focus Brands, Captain D’s and TGI Fridays, all of which are privately held companies. In addition, he is a former Trustee and Audit Committee chairman and is currently an Overseer of Boston University, and is a Trustee of One Family Health, both of which are non-profit organizations. Mr. Feltenstein is a past chairman of the International Franchise Association (IFA) and a former chairman of the IFA Educational Foundation. He is also a member of the IFA Hall of Fame and a past recipient of the IFA’s Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Mr. Feltenstein brings extensive operational and marketing management expertise to the Board through various positions held over his career and through his experience as a director of other public and private companies. Mr. Feltenstein holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from Boston University.



James A. Frost has served as a director since February 2015, when he was promoted to the position of President and Chief Operating Officer. In addition, since 2008, Mr. Frost has served as CEO of Tutor Perini’s Civil Group. He originally joined the Company’s predecessor, Tutor-Saliba, in 1988 and was ultimately elevated to the role of Chief Operating Officer. Prior to Tutor-Saliba, Mr. Frost founded and was the majority owner of his own general construction company, which he successfully operated for 10 years. He served in active military duty for more than four years with the United States Air Force. Mr. Frost studied engineering at the College of Southern Maryland, at Texas State University and at the University of Texas in Austin. He also completed a two-year business management program at the University of Phoenix in Woodland Hills, California. Over the course of his career, Mr. Frost has gained extensive executive leadership experience in construction management and operations, overseeing numerous projects, including many of the Company’s largest and most difficult building and civil projects. With 30 years of experience with the Company, Mr. Frost provides the Board with significant management and operational insight.



Dr. Michael Horodniceanu is a principal at Urban Advisory Group, Inc. From 2008 to 2017, he served as President of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Construction Company, where he managed a $20 billion transportation capital program, the largest such program in the U.S. During his tenure, he completed four mega-projects, including the long-awaited first phase of the Second Avenue Subway. Prior to joining MTA Capital Construction, he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Urbitran Group, a New York City-based engineering and architectural firm that specialized in planning, engineering, architecture and construction management for transportation projects. From 1986 through 1990, Dr. Horodniceanu served as Commissioner of New York City Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Traffic. Prior to that, he was a professor at Polytechnic Institute of New York University (now NYU Tandon School of Engineering) and Manhattan College, where he led courses in transportation engineering, transportation finance, transportation system safety, highway design, railroad engineering and terminal design. Throughout his career, Dr. Horodniceanu has been involved in a variety of civic activities bringing his leadership and expertise to many organizations. He has, and continues to serve as Chairman of the Faculty Advisory Board of NYU Tandon School of Engineering since 1992 and as Chairman of the Architecture, Engineering and Robotics Commission of the New York City Department of Education Career and Technical Education program since 2017. In addition, since 2001 he has been a director of the Community Service Society of New York, where he was previously a member of the Finance and Development Committees and is currently a member of the Investment Committee. Dr. Horodniceanu brings 40 years of academic and industry experience, and over 30 years of executive management experience. Dr. Horodniceanu holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, a Master of Science in Engineering Management from Columbia University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Transportation Planning and Engineering from Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Dr. Horodniceanu is a licensed Professional Engineer.



Michael R. Klein has served as a director since January 1997 and as Vice Chairman of the Board since September 2000. He has been elected by the Board as the Lead Independent Director. Mr. Klein, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of CoStar Group, Inc., a publicly held provider of commercial real estate information of which he was a co-founder; as Chairman and CEO of the Sunlight Foundation and of Gun Violence Archive, both non-profit organizations which he founded; and as Chairman of the Shakespeare Theatre Company, a non-profit organization. Through 2009, he served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Le Paradou, LLC, a privately held company, and through 2011 he served as the Lead Independent Director and Chairman of the Governance Committee of SRA International, Inc., a formerly publicly held provider of technology and strategic consulting services and solutions which was sold in June 2011, and as a director of ASTAR Air Cargo, Inc., a privately held company which was sold in 2014. He is a director of ThinkFood Group, LLC, a privately held food services company, a trustee of the Aspen Institute and Vice Chairman of the Aspen Music Festival and School, both non-profit organizations. From 1974 until 2005, Mr. Klein was a partner of the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering, now WilmerHale. Mr. Klein’s 40 plus years as a corporate lawyer, investor, and director of multiple corporations, both public and private, qualify and enable him to contribute sound judgment and leadership to the Company in his role as Lead Independent Director. Mr. Klein holds a Master of Laws from Harvard Law School and Juris Doctor and Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Miami.



Robert C. Lieber has served as a director since August 2014. Mr. Lieber is the Executive Managing Director of Island Capital Group LLC and C-III Capital Partners LLC (“C-III”). He joined the firm in July 2010, after having served under New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as Deputy Mayor for Economic Development. Prior to joining the Bloomberg administration, Mr. Lieber worked at Lehman Brothers for 23 years, serving most recently as a Managing Director of their Real Estate Private Equity Group and prior to that as the Global Head of Real Estate Investment Banking. C-III (through affiliates) serves as the manager of various real

5

 


 

 

estate investment trusts (REITs). In his capacity as Executive Managing Director of C-III, Mr. Lieber serves as a member of the board of directors of three REITs managed by subsidiaries of C-III: ACRE Realty Investors, a publicly traded REIT; Resource Income Opportunity REIT, Inc., a public non-traded REIT; and Resource Real Estate Opportunity REIT, Inc., a public non-traded REIT. In addition, Mr. Lieber serves as Chief Executive Officer (but not a director) of Resource Capital Corp., a publicly traded REIT, which is also managed by a subsidiary of C-III. Mr. Lieber also served as both Secretary of the Board and as a Trustee for the Urban Land Institute. He is the former Chairman of the Zell-Lurie Real Estate Center at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Lieber brings extensive expertise and insight into financial and political matters pertaining to real estate and infrastructure development projects, gained through his experience in the financial and governmental sectors. Mr. Lieber holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Colorado and a Master of Business Administration from the Wharton School.



Dennis D. Oklak has served as a director since May 2017. Mr. Oklak served as Chief Executive Officer of Duke Realty Corporation, a publicly traded REIT focused on industrial and office properties, from April 2004 through December 2015 and served as director from April 2004 and Chairman of the board of directors of Duke Realty Corporation from 2005 until April 2017. Mr. Oklak also served in various financial and management roles at Duke Realty from 1986 until his appointment as CEO in 2004. Mr. Oklak serves as a director on the Board of Xenia Hotels and Resorts, a publicly traded REIT specializing in hotel ownership, where he has served since February 2015. He also serves as the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Managers of Concession Company LLC, lessee of the Indiana Toll Road. Mr. Oklak serves on the Board of Trustees of the Crossroads of America Council of the Boy Scouts of America Foundation and the Dean’s Advisory Board for Ball State University’s Miller College of Business. Mr. Oklak contributes to the Board of Directors real estate industry, consulting, operations, development and executive leadership expertise, as well as finance, accounting and auditing expertise from nine years at Deloitte & Touche LLP prior to joining Duke Realty. The Board of Directors also values his experience as a chief executive officer and a public company director. He holds a Bachelor’s degree from Ball State University.



Raymond R. Oneglia has served as a director since March 2000. Since 1997, he has also served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of O&G Industries, Inc. (“O&G”), a Connecticut corporation engaged in the construction industry, and prior to that, served in various operating and administrative capacities with O&G since 1970. Mr. Oneglia’s 48 years of experience at O&G allow him to contribute an in-depth industry perspective. Mr. Oneglia holds a Bachelor of Science from Union College.



Dale Anne Reiss has served as a director since May 2014. She currently serves as Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital Group LLC and chairman of Brock Real Estate LLC, its equity and mezzanine financing arm. Ms. Reiss is a director of iStar Financial Inc., a real estate finance company, where she is chairperson of the Audit Committee, and of CYS Investments, Inc., where she is a member of the Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committees. Until her retirement in 2008, she served as Senior Partner as well as Global and America’s director of real estate, hospitality and construction at Ernst & Young LLP and was subsequently senior consultant to their Global Real Estate Center from 2008 to 2011. She served as a managing partner at Kenneth Leventhal & Company from 1985 through its merger with Ernst & Young in 1995. From 1980 to 1985, Ms. Reiss was a senior vice president and controller at Urban Investment & Development Company. Since 1998, Ms. Reiss has served as a governor and past Trustee of Urban Land Institute. She is a former member of the Board of Directors of Post Properties, Inc., where she served on the Audit Committee, of Care Capital Properties Inc., until its merger with Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., and of the Pension Real Estate Association. Ms. Reiss brings extensive expertise in financial and accounting matters from her experience over an extended period at several major public accounting firms, her leadership experience in management and operations at those firms, and her experience as a director of other public and private companies. Ms. Reiss holds a Bachelor of Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Chicago. She is a Certified Public Accountant.



Donald D. Snyder has served as a director since 2008. He was a director and the president of Boyd Gaming Corporation from 1997 until his retirement in 2005. Following service from 2010 as dean of the Harrah College of Hotel Administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (“UNLV”), Mr. Snyder was named Acting President of UNLV in February 2014. Since January 2015, he has served as Presidential Advisor at UNLV. He also serves as a member of the nominating and governance (chair) and the risk management committees of Western Alliance Bancorporation, a publicly held commercial bank holding company, and as a director and member of the compensation and governance (chair) committees of Switch, Inc., a publicly held technology company. He is presently on the Board of Directors of non-profit entities, including The Smith Center for the Performing Arts (Chairman) and the Nathan Adelson Hospice. Mr. Snyder’s role as a public gaming company executive, his experience in commercial banking (former Chairman & CEO of First Interstate Bank of Nevada), and his experience on several public, private and non-profit boards provides the Board comprehensive insight on financial and business matters. Mr. Snyder holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Wyoming.



Dickran M. Tevrizian, Jr. has served as a director since September 2011. Prior to his retirement in April 2007, Judge Tevrizian had been a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 1986, and earlier served from 1972 to 1982 as a Municipal and then as a Superior Court judge for the State of California. From 1999 to 2007, Judge Tevrizian also served as an Advisory Director to the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Policy. Upon retirement from the federal

6

 


 

 

judiciary, Judge Tevrizian assumed the role of a private mediator/arbitrator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. Judge Tevrizian also serves on the legal advisory board of LegalZoom.com, Inc. and on the boards of several other privately held companies and corporations. He is also a Trustee of Pacific Oaks College. Judge Tevrizian’s 31 plus years of experience as a federal and state judge provides the Board with significant insight on risk management and compliance matters. Judge Tevrizian holds a Juris Doctor and a Bachelor of Science in Finance from the University of Southern California.



Our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has recommended each of the above listed individuals for re-election as directors. Unless otherwise noted thereon, proxies solicited hereby will be voted for the election of the director nominees to hold office until the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until their successors are chosen and qualified. Each nominee has consented to being named in this proxy statement and, if elected, each nominee has consented to serve as a director until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified. The Board does not contemplate that any nominee will be unable to serve as a director for any reason, but if that should occur prior to the meeting, proxies solicited hereby may be voted either for a substitute nominee designated by the Board or recommended by the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, or the Board may determine to leave any such Board seat vacant until a suitable candidate is identified, or to reduce the size of the Board.



Board Recommendation



THE TUTOR PERINI BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ NOMINEES FOR RE-ELECTION OR ELECTION AS DIRECTOR.



7

 


 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS



Board Composition



The Board currently consists of 11 directors, all of whose terms expire upon the election of their successors at the 2018 Annual Meeting. The most recent addition to the Board was Dennis D. Oklak, who was elected to the Board by a vote of the Company’s shareholders at the 2017 Annual Meeting. On February 21, 2018, Thomas C. Leppert notified the Board of his decision to resign, effectively immediately. The Board has approved an increase to the size of the Board, from 11 to 12 members, contingent upon Dr. Horodniceanu’s election to the Board.



Under the Amended Shareholders Agreement, which became effective upon the September 2008 merger between Perini Corporation and Tutor-Saliba, Mr. Tutor (as the representative of the former Tutor-Saliba shareholders) has the right to designate one nominee for election as a member of the Board (and thereafter, for nomination for election), so long as Mr. Tutor and three trusts he controls (the “Tutor Group”) own at least 11.25% of the outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock. For more information, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Amended Shareholders Agreement.” Mr. Tutor elected to exercise his right to designate one nominee to the Board in November 2013, when he designated Mr. Feltenstein for nomination and election to the Board. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee reviewed Mr. Feltenstein’s qualifications and his appointment to the Board was unanimously approved by the Board.



Director Independence



The Board assesses its directors’ independence from the Company annually, pursuant to Section 303A of the NYSE Listing Standard. As of its most recent assessment, the Board has affirmatively determined that the following current Board members are independent directors: Mr. Arkley, Mr. Klein, Mr. Lieber, Mr. Oklak, Mr. Oneglia, Ms. Reiss, Mr. Snyder and Judge Tevrizian. The Board has also affirmatively determined that Dr. Horodniceanu will be an independent director if elected by shareholders. In making its determination of independence, the Board considered each director’s relationship with the Company and its management. Regarding the Compensation Committee, the Board considered all sources of compensation paid to the directors by the Company, as well as whether the director is affiliated with the Company or any of the Company’s subsidiaries or affiliates. The Board also broadly considered all relevant facts and circumstances when assessing the materiality of each of the Director’s relationships with the Company. The Board considered a broad range of possible relationships, including, among others, commercial, industry, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and familial.



As part of its review, the Board considered Mr. Arkley’s and Mr. Oneglia’s business relationships with the Company, and concluded that those relationships were not material and, therefore, both individuals are independent. A summary of the Board’s analysis follows:



With respect to Mr. Arkley, the Board considered the relationship between the Company and Alliant Insurance Services (“Alliant”), of which Mr. Arkley is currently a Senior Managing Director. In addition, the Board considered Mr. Arkley’s role on the Compensation Committee in assessing whether compensation to Mr. Arkley paid by any person or entity had or would impair his ability to make independent judgments about the Company’s named executive officers. Consistent with NYSE Listing Standard 303A.02(a), the Board determined that the Company’s relationship with Alliant did not impact Mr. Arkley’s independence from Tutor Perini because of the following: (1) services provided by Alliant are supplied to Tutor Perini on terms similar to Alliant’s other clients; (2) income generated by Alliant for services provided to Tutor Perini are not material to Alliant’s U.S. or consolidated operations; (3) Mr. Arkley is not personally involved in the management of Alliant’s services provided to the Company; (4) Mr. Arkley recuses himself on all Board decisions regarding insurance; (5) Mr. Arkley does not have the authority to unilaterally negotiate Alliant’s fees charged to the Company; (6) commissions paid by the Company are a) established by arrangements negotiated between Alliant and insurance carriers, b) applied indiscriminately to all of Alliant’s customers and c) publicly disclosed; and (7) remuneration paid to Mr. Arkley for his role at Alliant is not directly tied to the Company’s use of Alliant’s services.



Additionally, in determining Mr. Arkley’s independence, the Board considered, as it does for all of its directors, the qualitative and quantitative factors in NYSE Listing Standard 303A.02(b) and noted that none of these factors impacted Mr. Arkley’s independence.



i.

whether the director was employed by the company in the last three years or has a family member who was an executive officer of the company in the last three years;

ii.

whether the director or a family member accepted compensation from the company in excess of $120,000 during any 12 consecutive months in the last three years, other than remuneration for services provided as a director;

8

 


 

 

iii.

whether the director or a family member is a partner at the company’s auditor, or was an employee of the auditor and worked on the company’s audit in the last three years, or the director is an employee of the auditor, or a family member is an employee of the auditor and works on the company’s audit;

iv.

whether the director or a family member is or has been in the last three years an executive officer of another entity where any executive officer served on the compensation committee at the same time; and

v.

whether the Company made or received payments in the last three years in excess of the greater of 2% of the counterparty’s gross revenue and $1 million to an organization where a director is an employee or has a family member that is an executive officer.



Finally, the Board considered other qualitative factors, including those that could result in only the appearance of a lack of independence, and concluded that Mr. Arkley is independent in both fact and appearance.



With respect to Mr. Oneglia, the Board considered the relationship during 2017 between O&G, of which Mr. Oneglia is Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and a shareholder, and Tutor Perini, including the construction joint ventures between Tutor Perini and O&G. The Board determined that the existing joint venture arrangements do not impact Mr. Oneglia’s independence from Tutor Perini because of the following: (1) the joint ventures are formed for the limited purposes of performing specific contractual requirements for owners as is commonplace in the construction business; (2) Mr. Oneglia recuses himself on all Board decisions related to the joint ventures between the Company and O&G; (3) Mr. Oneglia is not personally involved in the management of these joint ventures; and (4) Mr. Oneglia does not have the authority to unilaterally negotiate and approve the terms of the joint venture arrangements. In addition, the full Board has, in each instance of a proposed joint venture, assured itself that the joint venture is on terms no more favorable to O&G than have been the terms of other joint ventures in which the Company has participated. Finally, the Board considered the qualitative and quantitative factors pursuant to NYSE Listing Standard 303A.02, outlined above regarding Mr. Arkley, and determined that none of these factors impacted Mr. Oneglia’s independence.



Mr. Tutor and Mr. Frost are both executive officers and employees of the Company, and Mr. Feltenstein is Mr. Tutor’s father-in-law. Accordingly, none of them serves on committees reserved for independent directors.



Communications with the Board



The Board welcomes the submission of any comments or concerns from shareholders, employees and other interested parties. Those who wish to communicate with the Board may submit communications in writing to Tutor Perini Corporation, 15901 Olden Street, Sylmar, California 91342 and marked to the attention of the Board of Directors or any of its committees or individual directors. All comments or concerns from shareholders and other interested parties will be forwarded directly to the appropriate Board committee or specific directors, as well as to the Company’s Compliance Officer.



In order to facilitate communications with the independent directors, we have a secure telephone number (800-489-8689) whereby shareholders, employees and other interested parties may make their concerns known directly and confidentially to the non-employee directors, the Audit Committee or the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. Shareholders and other interested parties can also communicate with the independent directors via email at board@tutorperini.com.



CORPORATE GOVERNANCE



Board Leadership



Mr. Tutor is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer positions are separately designated offices of the Company, as defined in the Company’s by-laws. However, these offices may be held by the same person. Mr. Tutor’s Employment Agreement stipulates that he shall serve as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, as a member of the Board of Directors and as Chairman of the Board. Furthermore, the Board has evaluated these positions and determined that Mr. Tutor’s continued participation in both positions is important to the continued success of the Company for the following reasons, among others: (i) his iconic role in the construction industry with a proven record of successfully bidding for and managing large, complex building and civil projects; (ii) his strong business relationships, including those with clients, suppliers, subcontractors and surety and insurance partners; and (iii) his business acumen, strategic sense, discipline and sound judgment, which have resulted in growth and vertical integration while positioning the Company for future success with additional infrastructure spending expected.



Mr. Klein is the Lead Independent Director elected as such by unanimous vote of the independent directors. For more information regarding Mr. Klein’s duties and authority as Lead Independent Director, see “Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee.”



9

 


 

 

Committees and Meetings of the Board of Directors



During 2017, the Board met four times, and each of our directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and the total number of meetings held by all committees on which such director served. The members of the Board are encouraged to attend our annual shareholders meetings. All 11 of the current directors attended the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.



Our by-laws authorize the Board to appoint one or more committees, each consisting of one or more directors. The Board currently has three standing committees: an Audit Committee, a Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and a Compensation Committee. The Board reviews the composition of its committees annually to identify opportunities to further enhance their effectiveness, as well as to bring fresh perspectives to the committees. Each of the committees of our Board has a charter, which satisfies the requirements of the corporate governance rules issued by the SEC and the NYSE for each respective committee. Each committee reviews its charter annually and revises it as appropriate. We maintain copies of the charters of each of the committees of our Board in the “Corporate Governance” section of our website at www.tutorperini.com and provide copies in print, without charge, to any shareholder requesting a copy.



The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight



Management is responsible for the Company’s day-to-day risk management activities. The Board is responsible for risk oversight, which includes identifying, evaluating and addressing potential risks that may exist at the enterprise, strategic, financial, operational, compliance and reporting levels. The Board also plays an integral role in providing risk oversight on potential related party transactions and transactions outside of the normal course of our operations. Our Board administers its risk oversight function as a whole and through its committees. The various committees of the Board oversees certain risks including, but not limited to, the following:



·

Audit Committee – Regularly reviews the integrity of the Company’s financial reporting process including internal control over financial reporting and discusses with management certain risk exposures, their potential financial impact on the company and its risk mitigation strategies.

·

Compensation Committee – Regularly reviews the compensation policies and practices throughout the Company to confirm that these plans do not encourage excessive risk-taking that may have a materially adverse effect on the Company.

·

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee – Develops and periodically reviews the Company’s Governance Structure, including the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics policy.



The Board meets, at least quarterly, with management to discuss key risks to our operations and our strategy, as well as risk mitigation plans and activities.



Since Mr. Tutor serves as both CEO and Chairman of the Board, having a Lead Independent Director in place, as discussed above, helps to ensure that the Board is fulfilling its role in risk oversight.



Nominations for Director



The Board considers candidates who are independent, possess relevant business, professional or board experience to make a significant contribution to the Board and have sufficient availability to attend to the business of the Company. Annually, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee conducts an evaluation of the Board to determine whether it is functioning effectively and recommends to the full Board the slate of director-nominees to be nominated for election at the next annual meeting of shareholders. Potential candidates for the Board may include candidates nominated by shareholders in accordance with our by-laws, those identified by a search firm retained for such purpose or candidates recommended by other persons, including current directors or executive officers. Pursuant to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee charter, the process and criteria for considering the recommendations of shareholders with respect to candidates for election to the Board is the same as those used for candidates recommended by other parties. The minimum qualifications and specific qualities and skills required for directors are set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, a copy of which is maintained in the “Corporate Governance” section of our website at www.tutorperini.com. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee considers the diversity in skill, experience and gender of each nominee when evaluating candidates individually and when considered with all directors as a group.



A shareholder who wishes to recommend a director-nominee to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders should submit the recommendation in writing to Tutor Perini Corporation, 15901 Olden Street, Sylmar, California 91342, Attention: Corporate Secretary, so it is received not less than 75 days nor more than 180 days prior to the anniversary date of the 2018 Tutor Perini Annual Meeting of Shareholders. However, if the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders is held more than seven days earlier than the anniversary date of the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, then notice must be delivered or received no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on (a) the 20th day following the earlier of (i) the day on which

10

 


 

 

such notice of the date of the annual meeting is mailed or (ii) the day on which public disclosure of the date of the annual meeting is made, or (b) if such date of notice or public disclosure occurs more than 75 days prior to the scheduled date of such meeting, then the later of (i) the 20th day following the first to occur of such notice or such public disclosure or (ii) the 75th day prior to such scheduled date of such meeting.



Such shareholder notice shall set forth (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election as a director (i) the name, age, business address and residence address of such person, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of such person for the past five years and (iii) the class and number of shares of the corporation’s capital stock that are beneficially owned by such person on the date of such shareholder notice and (b) as to the shareholder giving the notice (i) the name and address, as they appear on the Company’s stock transfer books, of such shareholder and of the beneficial owners (if any) of the stock registered in such shareholder’s name and the name and address of other shareholders known by such shareholder to be supporting such nominees on the date of such shareholder’s notice and (ii) the class and number of shares of the corporation’s capital stock that are beneficially owned by such shareholder and such beneficial owners (if any) on the date of such shareholder notice and by any other shareholders known by such shareholder to be supporting such nominees on the date of such shareholder notice.



Audit Committee



The Audit Committee currently consists of Dale Anne Reiss (Chair), Michael R. Klein, Robert C. Lieber and Dennis D. Oklak. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is “financially literate,” as defined in the NYSE listing standards, and meets the independence and experience requirements for members of an audit committee set forth in the rules of the SEC and the listing standards of the NYSE. Based upon review of their qualifications, the Board has designated Ms. Reiss, Mr. Klein, Mr. Lieber and Mr. Oklak as “Audit Committee financial experts” as defined by the rules of the SEC. None of the Audit Committee members serve on the audit committees of more than two other public companies.



The Audit Committee has the authority to retain special accounting, legal or other consultants, as deemed necessary. The Audit Committee met eight times during 2017.



11

 


 

 

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE



The Audit Committee (the “Committee”) oversees the financial reporting process of Tutor Perini Corporation (the “Company”), on behalf of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company in accordance with the Audit Committee charter. The Board, in its judgment, has determined that all members of the Committee meet the independence and experience requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”). The Board has designated Dale Anne Reiss (Chair), Michael R. Klein, Robert C. Lieber and Dennis D. Oklak as the Company’s “audit committee financial experts,” as defined by the rules of the SEC and NYSE, based on a review of their qualifications.



The Company's management is responsible for the financial reporting process and preparation of the quarterly and annual consolidated financial statements, including maintaining a system of internal control over financial reporting, as well as disclosure controls and procedures. The Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, oversight and termination of the Company's independent auditors (Deloitte & Touche LLP, or “Deloitte,” an independent registered public accounting firm). The Committee is also responsible for the oversight of the Company’s internal audit function. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Committee meets with Deloitte, internal audit and management to review accounting, auditing, internal controls and financial reporting matters. Deloitte audits the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting and expresses its opinion thereon, in addition to auditing the annual consolidated financial statements and expressing an opinion whether those financial statements present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



The Committee has adopted pre-approval policies and procedures for certain audit and non-audit services and evaluated whether those pre-approved services that Deloitte provides are consistent with the SEC’s rules and regulations on auditor independence. The Committee has the authority to engage outside legal counsel and others to obtain advice and assistance as deemed necessary.



In connection with the December 31, 2017 audited consolidated financial statements, the Committee:



·

Reviewed and discussed with management and Deloitte the Company's audited financial statements, including discussions regarding critical accounting policies, other financial accounting and reporting principles and practices appropriate for the Company, the quality of such principles and practices, and the reasonableness of significant judgments;



·

Reviewed and discussed with internal audit, management and Deloitte the Company's internal control over financial reporting, including a review of management's and Deloitte’s assessments of and reports on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses;



·

Reviewed with management and legal counsel any significant legal and regulatory matters that may have had a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements;



·

Discussed with Deloitte the matters that are required to be discussed with the Company’s independent auditors by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Auditing Standard 1301 “Communications with Audit Committees”; and



·

Reviewed and considered the written disclosures and the letter regarding the independence of the Company’s independent auditors, which were received from Deloitte, as required by PCAOB Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, “Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence,” and discussed with Deloitte its independence.



Based on the reviews and discussions above, the Committee recommended to the Board that the audited consolidated financial statements for 2017 be included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 for filing with the SEC. The Committee also recommended to the Board the reappointment of Deloitte, as the independent auditors of the Company for 2018. The Board approved both recommendations made by the Committee and resolved to include Deloitte’s reappointment to the Company’s shareholders for ratification at the 2018 Annual Meeting.







 

The Audit Committee

 

Dale Anne Reiss, Chair

 

Michael R. Klein

 

Robert C. Lieber

 

Dennis D. Oklak

 

12

 


 

 

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee



The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee currently consists of Michael R. Klein (Chair), Peter Arkley, Robert C. Lieber, Raymond R. Oneglia, Donald D. Snyder and Dickran M. Tevrizian, Jr. The Board has determined that each member of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is an independent director, as defined by the NYSE. The duties of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee include the following:



·

Identifying individuals qualified to become directors and recommending to the full Board the persons to be nominated for election as directors;



·

Recommending director nominees for each committee of the Board and nominees for Chair of each committee;



·

Evaluating the independence of each director and so advising the Board;



·

Conducting a review and update, as necessary, of the Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics;



·

Conducting evaluations of the performance of the Board and each committee, including a self-evaluation; and



·

Nominating a Lead Independent Director whose duties include presiding at executive sessions of the non-management directors.



The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has the authority to retain consultants or other experts as it considers necessary to assist in the performance of its duties. During 2017, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee did not retain any consultants or other experts. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee met five times during 2017.



The independent directors have designated Michael R. Klein, chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, to act as the Lead Independent Director. In his capacity as Lead Independent Director, Mr. Klein has the following duties and authority:



·

Chairing any meeting of the independent members of the Board in executive session;



·

Meeting with any director who is not adequately performing his duties as a member of the Board or any committee;



·

Serving as a liaison between the Chairman of the Board and the independent directors;



·

Facilitating communications between other members of the Board and the Chairman of the Board; however, each Director is free to communicate directly with the Chairman of the Board;



·

Working with the Chairman of the Board to prepare the agenda for Board meetings and determining the need for special meetings of the Board; and



·

Consulting with the Chairman of the Board on matters relating to corporate governance and Board performance.



We have developed Corporate Governance Guidelines and a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics to outline our commitment to carefully govern the operation of our business and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, while maintaining the highest ethical standards. The Code applies to all of our officers, directors, agents and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and persons performing similar functions. Tutor Perini’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are also available in the “Corporate Governance” section of our website at www.tutorperini.com. Interested parties may obtain printed copies of these documents by writing to or calling the Investor Relations Department of the Company at 15901 Olden Street, Sylmar, California 91342; Telephone: (818) 362-8391; E‑Mail: investor.relations@tutorperini.com. Any amendments to, or waivers of, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that apply to our officers, directors, agents and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and persons performing similar functions, will be disclosed on our website promptly following the date of such amendment or waiver.



13

 


 

 

Compensation Committee



The Compensation Committee currently consists of Donald D. Snyder (Chair), Peter Arkley and Michael R. Klein. Thomas C. Leppert served on the Compensation Committee from March 2017 until February 2018, when he resigned from the Board, and during which period Mr. Arkley was not a member of the Committee. The Board considered who among the remaining independent directors would best fill the Committee seat vacated by Mr. Leppert upon his resignation, and determined that Mr. Arkley was the best choice based on his extensive knowledge of and experience in the construction industry, including knowledge of the compensation practices of the Company’s public and privately held peers. The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee is an independent director, as defined by the NYSE, and meets the additional independence requirements of the NYSE applicable to Compensation Committee members.



The principal powers and duties of the Compensation Committee as established by the Board are as follows:



·

Review and approve the executive compensation programs and to employ outside expert assistance, if required, to analyze our compensation practices to assure that they are consistent with the Company’s goals and objectives, and competitive with those of comparable firms in the construction industry;



·

Review and recommend to the Board compensation of directors for service on the Board and its committees;



·

Review and approve corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), evaluate the CEO’s performance in light of those goals and objectives, and recommend to the independent directors of the Board the CEO’s compensation for the Board’s approval;



·

Pursuant to the authority delegated to it by the Board, review and approve the compensation of other executive officers taking into account such factors as it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the recommendations of the CEO;



·

Establish, approve and certify the incentive compensation plans in effect, including (i) participants; (ii) performance goals (including, but not limited to, performance goals intended to meet the requirements of Section 162(m)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code); (iii) payment, if any, of bonuses; (iv) determination of whether the form of payment will be cash, stock or a combination thereof, with the CEO’s incentive compensation to be ratified by the independent directors of the Board; (v) interpret the provisions of the incentive compensation plan(s); and (vi) establish rules and regulations governing the incentive compensation plan(s);



·

Oversee administration of the Perini Corporation Pension Plan, including monitoring investments, approval of significant changes to the plan and such other actions that the committee deems necessary; and



·

Review and approve the Compensation Discussion and Analysis prepared by management, and recommend its inclusion in the proxy statement or Form 10-K.



The Compensation Committee has the authority to retain special consultants to advise the Committee as it considers necessary. These consultants report exclusively to the Compensation Committee, which has sole discretion to hire and fire the consultants and to approve their fees. The Compensation Committee retained the services of Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”) in 2017 to review and provide guidance for the proxy statement and to provide other consultative services related to our compensation programs and practices. In addition, the Compensation Committee consulted Kirkland & Ellis LLP (“K&E”) on certain legal aspects of executive compensation, including our employment and compensation arrangements with our CEO and other executive officers, and our advisory vote proposal on our executive compensation. K&E also advises the Company regarding general corporate, strategic and capital markets matters. The Compensation Committee considered independence factors under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and NYSE rules and concluded that the work performed by Meridian and K&E did not give rise to any conflicts of interest.



The Compensation Committee met 12 times during 2017.



14

 


 

 

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE



The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) contained in this proxy statement with management. Based on the aforementioned review and discussion, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Board, and the Board has approved, that the CD&A be included in the Company’s 2018 proxy statement for filing with the SEC.





 

The Compensation Committee

 

Donald D. Snyder, Chair

 

Peter Arkley

 

Michael R. Klein

 



 

15

 


 

 

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS



We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for all executive officers, directors, and employees, which addresses potential conflict of interest situations, including related party transactions. Under this Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, any questions involving potential conflict of interest situations are required to be directed to our Chief Compliance Officer, and suspected violations are required to be reported to either the Chief Compliance Officer or the Chair of the Audit Committee. In addition, our Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating potential transactions with related parties and then advising the Board whether such transactions are appropriate.



The transactions described below were reviewed and approved by the Audit Committee or the full Board, as applicable, in accordance with our policies involving potential conflict of interest situations.



Amended Shareholders Agreement



Effective September 8, 2008 upon completion of the merger with Tutor-Saliba, we entered into a shareholders agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Amended Shareholders Agreement”) with Mr. Tutor, as the shareholder representative, and each of the former Tutor-Saliba shareholders who became shareholders of Tutor Perini, which provides for the following:



Mr. Tutor will be nominated for election to the Board as long as he serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Tutor Perini.



Mr. Tutor has the right to designate two nominees for election to the Board for so long as the Tutor Group owns at least 22.5% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and one nominee if the Tutor Group owns less than 22.5% but at least 11.25% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock. Mr. Tutor elected to exercise his right to designate one nominee to the Board when, in November 2013, he designated Mr. Feltenstein for nomination and election to the Board. Accordingly, at each meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be elected, we have agreed to nominate and recommend the shareholder representative’s designee(s) and Mr. Tutor (as long as he serves as our Chief Executive Officer) for election to the Board, subject to certain limitations to comply with law, governance requirements or eligibility for listing on a securities exchange or if a nominee is deemed to be unfit to serve as a director of an NYSE-listed company or otherwise does not meet applicable eligibility criteria.



The Tutor Group (see “Board Composition” for discussion of the Tutor Group) has certain registration rights with respect to the shares of the Common Stock acquired pursuant to the merger. After March 8, 2009, Mr. Tutor, as shareholder representative, may require Tutor Perini, on up to three occasions, to register shares of Common Stock issued to the Tutor Group in connection with the merger for resale under the Securities Act in an underwritten offering. Additionally, if we propose to register any securities under the Securities Act, each member of the Tutor Group must receive notice of the registration and the opportunity to include its shares of the Common Stock in the registration. These “piggyback registration” rights are subject to customary conditions and limitations, including the right of the underwriters of an offering to limit the number of shares included in such registration and Tutor Perini’s right to decline a request to register shares. Tutor Perini is responsible for paying the expenses of any such registration.



Leased Property



We lease certain facilities at market lease rates from an entity indirectly owned and controlled by Mr. Tutor. Under these leases we paid $2.8 million and recognized expense of $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. Our participation in these lease agreements was reviewed and approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter.



O&G Joint Ventures



Mr. Oneglia is Vice Chairman of O&G Industries, Inc. (“O&G”). The Company occasionally forms construction project joint ventures with O&G, in which each partner may provide equipment and services for the projects on customary trade terms. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we had three active joint ventures with O&G including two infrastructure projects in the northeastern United States that are both complete, and one for a project in Los Angeles, California in which the Company’s and O&G’s joint venture interests are 75% and 25%, respectively. Immaterial payments (totaling less than $1 million) were made to O&G by the joint ventures, not the Company, during 2017. Our participation in these joint ventures was reviewed and approved by the full Board in accordance with the Company’s policies. See “Director Independence” for additional information.



16

 


 

 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION



No member of the Compensation Committee has served as one of our officers or employees at any time. None of our executive officers currently serves, or in the past year has served, as a member of the board or compensation committee of any entity that has one or more executive officers serving on our Board or Compensation Committee. No member of the Compensation Committee had any relationship requiring disclosure under Item 404 of Regulation S-K.



17

 


 

 

PROPOSAL 2: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS



Our Audit Committee has selected Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as our auditors for the year ending December 31, 2018. Although shareholder approval of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP is not required by law, the Board believes that it is advisable to give shareholders an opportunity to ratify this selection. If this proposal is not approved by our shareholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting, our Audit Committee will reconsider their selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP. Deloitte & Touche LLP has been our independent registered public accounting firm since 2002. Representatives of Deloitte & Touche LLP will be present at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, will have the opportunity to make a statement, if they so desire, and will be available to answer appropriate questions.



FEES PAID TO AUDIT FIRM



During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we retained Deloitte & Touche LLP to provide services in the following categories and amounts:



 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 



2017

 

2016

Audit Fees

$

4,114,011 

 

$

4,104,542 

Audit-Related Fees(1)

 

59,416 

 

 

78,799 

Tax Fees(2)

 

320,506 

 

 

208,989 

All Other Fees

 

 —

 

 

 —

Total Fees

$

4,493,933 

 

$

4,392,330 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

Audit-related fees were primarily for assurance services and services that are not required by statute or regulation.

(2)

Consists of fees for tax consulting services, including evaluation of recently issued regulations, as well as the Company’s qualifications for certain tax benefits.



Pre-Approval Policy for Services Provided by our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Audit Committee has established a policy to pre-approve all permissible audit and non-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm consistent with applicable SEC rules. Our independent registered public accounting firm is prohibited from performing any management consulting projects. Our independent registered public accounting firm is also prohibited from providing tax consulting services relating to transactions or proposals in which the sole purpose may be tax avoidance or for which the tax treatment may not be supported by the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Prior to the engagement of our independent registered public accounting firm for the next year’s audit, management submits an aggregate of services expected to be rendered during that year for each of the categories of services described above to the Audit Committee for approval. Prior to engagement, the Audit Committee pre-approves these services by category of service. The fees are budgeted by category of service and the Audit Committee receives periodic reports from management and our independent registered public accounting firm on actual fees versus the budget by category of service. During the year, circumstances may arise when it may become necessary to engage our independent registered public accounting firm for additional services not contemplated in the original pre-approval of the services. In those instances, the Audit Committee is required to provide specific pre-approval before engaging our independent registered public accounting firm.



All of the services related to the above fees were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.



The Audit Committee may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of its members, who are required to report, for informational purposes, any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.



Board Recommendation



THE TUTOR PERINI BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP AS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS FOR TUTOR PERINI FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2018.

  

18

 


 

 

PROPOSAL 3: APPROVAL TO ADOPT THE NEW TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN TO EFFECT THE MERGER OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN AND THE TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN



The Company currently maintains the Amended and Restated Tutor Perini Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on October 2, 2014 (the “Legacy Plan”) and the Tutor Perini Corporation Incentive Compensation Plan adopted on April 3, 2017 (the “Current Plan”, together with the Legacy Plan, the “Historical Plans”). The Compensation Committee believes that a new Tutor Perini Corporation Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which merges the Legacy Plan and the Current Plan, is desirable in order to reduce the effort and cost of administering the Company’s equity program and to simplify certain terms of the Plan. The Compensation Committee also believes that a new Plan is desirable in order to continue to provide long- and short-term equity-based and cash-based incentive awards to key employees and continue to provide key employees strategic alignment with shareholder interests and achievement of retention goals of key employees. The Plan permits the issuance of shares authorized under the Current Plan as well as previously authorized shares subject to outstanding awards under the Historical Plans that may be forfeited, cancelled or held back for net settlement. The Historical Plans will govern all outstanding awards as of April 10, 2018; however, no new awards will be granted under the Historical Plans.



Based on its review of the Plan, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Plan be adopted. It is common practice for public companies to have incentive plans that utilize share-based awards to reward and motivate their executives, and executives of public companies expect share-based awards to be part of their long-term compensation. Accordingly, the Board recommends that the Company’s shareholders approve the Plan for the following reasons:



·

The Plan ensures that the Company is able to continue its long-term, share-based incentive strategy, which is a critical element of its Pay-for-Performance compensation philosophy designed to align incentives for key employees with the creation of shareholder value;



·

The Plan provides the Company with the means to retain and attract the executive talent needed to ensure the future success of the Company, which is increasingly critical given the project opportunities ahead and the competition that the Company faces for executive talent;



·

The merger of the Historical Plans into the Plan reduces the administrative cost and expense required to manage multiple plans;



·

The Plan reflects changes in the law as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; and



·

As in the Current Plan, the Plan provides for a minimum vesting of one-year, with certain limited exceptions, on share-based awards and prohibits the payment of cash dividends on unvested awards; both are provisions designed to further align the Plan with shareholders’ interests, based on feedback we have received.



Summary Description of the Plan. The following is a summary of the principal features of the Plan. The summary is not a complete description of all the terms of the Plan and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete text of the Plan, which is attached to this Proxy Statement as Exhibit A.



Plan Administration. The Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors (the “Administrator”), which has full power to select the eligible individuals to whom awards will be granted, to make any combination of awards to participants, and to determine the specific terms and conditions of each award, subject to the provisions of the Plan. The Administrator may permit Common Stock, and other amounts payable pursuant to an award, to be deferred. In such instances, the Administrator may permit interest, dividends or deemed dividends to be credited to the amount of deferrals. In addition, the Administrator may not reprice outstanding options.



Eligibility and Limitations on Grants. All full-time and part-time officers, employees, non-employee directors and other key persons of Tutor Perini and its subsidiaries are eligible to participate in the Plan, subject to the discretion of the Administrator.



The Plan permits the issuance of awards for up to an aggregate of 2,239,364 shares, which is the number of shares authorized under the Current Plan (2,335,000), less shares issued since the inception of the Current Plan (95,636). As of April 10, 2018, 1,620,000 of these shares have been awarded and remain outstanding, and 619,364 of these shares remain subject to grant pursuant to new awards under the Plan. Consistent with the Historical Plans, any shares that are included in an award and that are forfeited, cancelled or held back for net settlement will be added back to the amount of shares available for award under the Plan. In addition, the Plan permits the issuance of awards for up to an aggregate of an additional 3,543,022 shares, which corresponds to the number of shares that are subject to awards currently outstanding under the Legacy Plan (3,179,931) plus the number of shares that were subject to awards that

19

 


 

 

were granted under the Legacy Plan but have been forfeited since the Legacy Plan was frozen in 2017 (363,091). Awards for these additional 3,543,022 shares may be issued if, and only to the extent that, shares subject to awards that were granted under the Legacy Plan are, or have been, forfeited, cancelled or held back for net settlement, thereby preserving the share recycling feature of the Legacy Plan. In summary, the Plan permits the issuance of awards for a total number of shares up to an aggregate of 5,782,386 (2,239,364 shares from the Current Plan, plus 3,543,022 related to potentially recycled shares from the Legacy Plan). With enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Section 162(m) performance-based award (including stock option) grant size limits are no longer required. However, in the interest of good governance, the Company has maintained certain limits.  Specifically, (i) the maximum award of stock options or stock appreciation rights granted to any one individual will not exceed 800,000 shares of Common Stock (subject to adjustment for stock splits and similar events) for any calendar year period, (ii) the maximum number of shares of Common Stock granted to any one individual with respect to an award other than stock options or stock appreciation rights will not exceed 500,000 shares of Common Stock (subject to adjustment for stock splits and similar events, and with respect to performance-based awards the 500,000 share limit shall apply to the number of shares of Common Stock that can be issued at target performance pursuant to such award) for any calendar year period, and (iii) the maximum annual cash incentive award that may be granted to any one individual will not exceed $6,000,000 with respect to any calendar year. The minimum vesting period for all future awards under this Plan shall be one year, with certain limited exceptions as specified in the Plan.



Stock Options. Options granted under the Plan may be either incentive stock options (within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code) or non-qualified stock options. Incentive stock options may be granted only to employees of Tutor Perini or any subsidiary. To qualify as incentive stock options, options must meet additional federal tax requirements, including a $100,000 limit on the value of shares subject to incentive stock options which first become exercisable in any one calendar year, and a shorter term and higher minimum exercise price in the case of ten percent shareholders. Options granted under the Plan will be non-qualified stock options if they (i) fail to qualify as incentive stock options, (ii) are granted to a person not eligible to receive incentive stock options under the Code, or (iii) otherwise so provide, and may be granted to any persons eligible to receive incentive stock options and to non-employee directors and other key persons.



The Administrator has authority to determine the terms of options granted under the Plan. However, options must be granted with an exercise price that is not less than the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock on the date of the option grant. The term of each option will be fixed by the Administrator but may not exceed ten years from the date of grant. The Administrator will determine at what time or times each option may be exercised and, subject to the provisions of the Plan, the period of time, if any, after retirement, death, disability or termination of employment during which options may be exercised. Options may be made exercisable in installments, and the exercisability of options may be accelerated by the Administrator. In general, unless otherwise permitted by the Administrator, no option granted under the Plan is transferable by the optionee other than by will or by the laws of descent and distribution, and options may be exercised during the optionee’s lifetime only by the optionee, or by the optionee’s legal representative or guardian in the case of the optionee’s incapacity.



Options granted under the Plan may be exercised for cash or by transfer to Tutor Perini (either actually or by attestation) of shares of Common Stock that are not then subject to restrictions under any Tutor Perini stock plan, and that have a fair market value equivalent to the option exercise price of the shares being purchased. Subject to applicable law, options granted under the Plan also may be exercised by compliance with certain provisions pursuant to which a securities broker delivers the purchase price for the shares to us.



Stock Appreciation Rights. The Administrator may award a stock appreciation right (“SAR”) either as a freestanding award or in tandem with a stock option. The term of each freestanding SAR will be fixed by the Administrator but may not exceed ten years. The term of a SAR granted in tandem with a stock option shall be the same as the related stock option. Upon exercise of the SAR, the holder will be entitled to receive an amount equal to the excess of the fair market value on the date of exercise of one share of Common Stock over the exercise price per share specified in the related stock option (or, in the case of a freestanding SAR, the price per share specified in such SAR) times the number of shares of Common Stock with respect to which the SAR is exercised. This amount may be paid in cash, in shares of Common Stock, or a combination thereof, as determined by the Administrator. The exercise price per share of SARs may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock on the date of grant.



Prohibition on Repricing of Stock Options and SARs without Shareholder Approval. The Administrator may not implement any of the following repricing or cash-out programs without obtaining shareholder approval: (i) reduce the exercise price of an outstanding stock option or an outstanding SAR; (ii) cancel outstanding stock options or outstanding SARs in exchange for other stock options or other SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the cancelled stock options or cancelled SARs, as applicable; or (iii) cancel an outstanding stock option or an outstanding SAR with an exercise price that is less than the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the date of cancellation in exchange for cash or another award.



Restricted Stock Awards. The Administrator may grant shares, at a purchase price (which may be zero, subject to the limitations of applicable law) determined by the Administrator, of Common Stock to any participant subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Administrator may determine. These conditions and restrictions may include the achievement of pre-established performance goals

20

 


 

 

and/or continued employment with Tutor Perini through a specified vesting period, as determined by the Administrator. However, in the event these awards have a performance-based goal, the restriction period will be at least one year, and in the event these awards have a time-based restriction, the restriction period will be at least three years, provided that the awards may vest ratably over such period. If the applicable performance goals and other restrictions are not attained, the participant will forfeit his or her award of restricted stock.



Deferred Stock Awards. The Administrator also may award phantom stock units or restricted stock units as deferred stock awards to participants. The deferred stock awards are ultimately payable in the form of shares of Common Stock and/or cash and may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Administrator may determine, including the achievement of certain performance goals and/or continued employment with Tutor Perini through a specified vesting period. However, in the event these awards have a performance-based goal, the restriction period will be at least one year, and in the event these awards have a time-based restriction, the restriction period will be at least three years, provided that the awards may vest ratably over such period. During the deferral period, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Administrator, the deferred stock awards may be credited with dividend equivalent rights (discussed below). Subject to the consent of the Administrator, a participant may make an advance election to receive a portion of his or her compensation or restricted stock award otherwise due in the form of a deferred stock award.



Unrestricted Stock Awards. The Administrator may also grant shares (at no cost or for a purchase price determined by the Administrator) of Common Stock that are free from any restrictions under the Plan. Unrestricted stock may be granted to any participant in recognition of past services or other valid consideration, and may be issued in lieu of cash compensation due to such participant.



Dividend Equivalent Rights. The Administrator may grant dividend equivalent rights that entitle the recipient to receive credits for dividends that would be paid if the recipient had held specified shares of Common Stock. Dividend equivalent rights may be granted as a component of another award or as a freestanding award. Dividend equivalents shall be credited to a dividend book entry account on behalf of the holder, provided that such dividend equivalents shall be paid at the same time that the dividend equivalent rights are vested. Dividend equivalent rights may be settled in cash, shares of Common Stock or a combination thereof, in a single installment or installments, as specified in the award.



Limitations on Vesting. No award granted under the Plan shall vest earlier than the first anniversary of its date of grant, unless such award is granted in lieu of salary, bonus or other compensation otherwise earned by or payable to a grantee. This limitation does not apply to awards granted to non-employee directors of the Company and an aggregate of up to 5% of the maximum number of authorized shares that may be granted under the Plan.



Performance Awards. The Administrator may grant awards under the Plan that vest and are paid based on attainment of specified performance goals established by the Administrator. These performance goals may be based on the attainment (on an annual and/or cumulative basis and on an absolute and/or relative basis) of a certain target level of or a specified increase or decrease in criteria selected by the Administrator, including but not limited to the following:



·

earnings per share

·

operating income

·

gross income

·

net income (before or after taxes)

·

operating cash flow

·

gross profit

·

gross profit return on investment

·

gross margin return on investment

·

gross margin

·

operating margin

·

working capital

·

earnings before interest and taxes

·

earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization

·

return on equity

·

return on assets

·

return on capital

·

return on invested capital

·

revenue

·

revenue growth

·

recurring revenues

21

 


 

 

·

sales or market share

·

total shareholder return

·

economic value added

·

safety

o

OSHA Recordable Incident Rate

o

Lost Time Case Rate

o

Lost Workday Rate

o

Days Away/Restricted or Job Transfer Rate (DART Rate)

o

Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

·

individual performance

·

specified objectives with regard to limiting the level of increase in all or a portion of Tutor Perini’s bank debt or other long-term or short-term public or private debt or other similar financial obligations of Tutor Perini, which may be calculated net of cash balances and/or other offsets and adjustments as may be established by the Administrator in its sole discretion

·

the fair market value of the shares of Tutor Perini’s Common Stock

·

the growth in the value of an investment in Tutor Perini’s Common Stock assuming the reinvestment of dividends

·

reduction in operating expenses



The Administrator may provide in any award that any evaluation of performance may include or exclude the impact, if any, on reported financial results of any of the following events that occurs during a performance period: (a) asset write-downs; (b) litigation or claim judgments or settlements; (c) changes in tax laws, accounting principles or other laws or provisions; (d) reorganization or restructuring programs; (e) acquisitions or divestitures; (f) discontinued operations; (g) foreign exchange gains and losses; (h) gains and losses that are infrequent in occurrence and unusual in nature; or (i) an event either not directly related to the operations of Tutor Perini or not within the reasonable control of Tutor Perini’s management.



The Administrator retains the discretion to adjust otherwise payable awards downward or upward, either on a formula or discretionary basis or any combination, as the Administrator determines, in its sole discretion. Performance goals may also be based on an individual participant’s performance goals, as determined by the Administrator, in its sole discretion.



Any performance goal may, as the Administrator deems appropriate, (i) relate to the performance of Tutor Perini or any Subsidiary as a whole or any business unit or division of Tutor Perini or any Subsidiary or any combination thereof; (ii) be compared to the performance of a group of peer companies, or published or special index; (iii) be based on change in the applicable performance criteria over a specified period of time and such change may be measured based on an arithmetic change over the specified period (e.g., cumulative change or average change), or percentage change over the specified period (e.g., cumulative percentage change, average percentage change or compounded percentage change); (iv) relate to or be compared to one or more other performance criteria; or (v) any combination of the foregoing.



Other Cash-Based Awards. The Administrator may grant other cash-based awards in such amounts, on such terms and conditions, and for such consideration, including no consideration or such minimum consideration as may be required by applicable law, as the Administrator determines in its sole discretion. Other cash-based awards may be granted subject to the satisfaction of vesting conditions or may be awarded purely as a bonus and not subject to restrictions or conditions, and if subject to vesting conditions, the Administrator may accelerate the vesting of such awards at any time in its sole discretion.



Tax Withholding. Participants under the Plan are responsible for the payment of any federal, state or local taxes that we are required by law to withhold upon any option exercise or vesting of other awards. Subject to approval by the Administrator, participants may elect to have their tax withholding obligations satisfied either by authorizing us to withhold shares of Common Stock to be issued pursuant to an option exercise or other award, or by transferring to us shares of Common Stock having a value equal to the amount of such taxes.



Adjustments for Stock Dividends, Mergers, etc. The Administrator may make appropriate adjustments to the number of shares of Common Stock that are subject to the Plan and to any outstanding stock options to reflect stock dividends, stock splits and similar events. In the event of certain transactions, such as a merger, consolidation, dissolution or liquidation of Tutor Perini, the Plan and all awards will terminate unless the parties to the transaction, in their discretion, provide for appropriate substitutions or adjustments of outstanding stock options or other awards.



Amendments and Termination. The Board of Directors may at any time amend or discontinue the Plan and the Administrator may at any time amend or cancel any outstanding award, but no such action shall adversely affect the rights under any outstanding awards without the holder’s consent subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions permit the Administrator to amend outstanding awards to adjust for the occurrence of certain unusual or nonrecurring events and to conform to legal requirements without the written consent of

22

 


 

 

the award recipient. Any amendments that materially change the terms of the Plan, including any amendments that increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan, expand the type of awards available, materially expand the eligibility to participate or materially extend the term of the Plan, or materially change the method of determining fair market value, will be subject to approval by our shareholders. To the extent required by the Code to ensure that options granted under the Plan qualify as incentive stock options or that compensation earned under awards granted under the Plan qualify as performance-based compensation under the Code, Plan amendments shall be subject to approval by our shareholders.



Term of the Plan. No award will be granted under the Plan on or after the tenth anniversary of the Effective Date, but awards granted prior to the tenth anniversary may extend beyond that date. Subject to approval of the Plan by our shareholders and to the requirement that no stock may be issued under the Plan prior to shareholder approval, stock options and other awards may be granted under the Plan on and after adoption of the Plan by the Board of Directors.



Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences



The rules concerning the federal income tax consequences with respect to options granted and to be granted pursuant to the Plan are quite technical. Moreover, the applicable statutory provisions are subject to change, as are their interpretations and applications, which may vary in individual circumstances. Therefore, the following is designed to provide a general understanding of the U.S. federal income tax consequences with respect to such grants. In addition, the following discussion does not set forth any gift, estate, social security or state or local tax consequences that may be applicable and is limited to the U.S. federal income tax consequences to individuals who are citizens or residents of the United States, other than those individuals who are taxed on a residence basis in a foreign country.



Incentive Stock Options. In general, an employee will not realize taxable income upon either the grant or the exercise of an incentive stock option and Tutor Perini will not realize an income tax deduction at either of such times. In general, however, for purposes of the alternative minimum tax, the excess of the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock acquired upon exercise of an incentive stock option (determined at the time of exercise) over the exercise price of the incentive stock option will be considered income. If the recipient was continuously employed from the date of grant until the date three months prior to the date of exercise and such recipient does not sell the shares of Common Stock received pursuant to the exercise of the incentive stock option within either (i) two years after the date of the grant of the incentive stock option, or (ii) one year after the date of exercise, a subsequent sale of such shares of Common Stock will result in long-term capital gain or loss to the recipient and will not result in a tax deduction to Tutor Perini.



If the recipient is not continuously employed from the date of grant until the date three months prior to the date of exercise or such recipient disposes of the shares of Common Stock acquired upon exercise of the incentive stock option within either of the time periods described in the immediately preceding paragraph, the recipient will generally realize as ordinary income an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the fair market value of such shares of Common Stock on the date of exercise over the exercise price, and (ii) the amount realized upon disposition over the exercise price. In such event, subject to the limitations under Section 280G of the Code (as described below), Tutor Perini generally will be entitled to an income tax deduction equal to the amount recognized as ordinary income. Any gain in excess of such amount realized by the recipient as ordinary income would be taxed at the rates applicable to short-term or long-term capital gains (depending on the holding period).



Nonqualified Stock Options. A recipient will not realize any taxable income upon the grant of a nonqualified stock option and Tutor Perini will not receive a deduction at the time of such grant unless such option has a readily ascertainable fair market value (as determined under applicable tax law) at the time of grant. Upon exercise of a nonqualified stock option, the recipient generally will realize ordinary income in an amount equal to the excess of the fair market value of the shares of Common Stock on the date of exercise over the exercise price. Upon a subsequent sale of such shares of Common Stock by the recipient, the recipient will recognize short-term or long-term capital gain or loss depending upon his or her holding period of such shares of Common Stock. Subject to the limitations under Section 280G of the Code (as described below), Tutor Perini will generally be allowed a deduction equal to the amount recognized by the recipient as ordinary income.



Certain Other Tax Issues. In addition to the matters described above, (i) any entitlement to a tax deduction on the part of Tutor Perini is subject to applicable federal tax rules; (ii) the exercise of an incentive stock option may have implications in the computation of alternative minimum taxable income; (iii) certain awards under the Plan may be subject to the requirements of Section 409A of the Code (regarding nonqualified deferred compensation); and (iv) if the exercisability or vesting of any award is accelerated because of a change in control, such award (or a portion thereof), either alone or together with certain other payments, may constitute parachute payments under Section 280G of the Code, which excess amounts may be subject to excise taxes. Officers and directors of Tutor Perini subject to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, may be subject to special tax rules regarding the income tax consequences concerning their options.



23

 


 

 

The Plan is not subject to any of the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The Plan is not, nor is it intended to be, qualified under Section 401(a) of the Code.



Future Plan Awards. The terms and number of options or other awards to be granted in the future under the Plan are to be determined in the discretion of the Compensation Committee. Since no such determinations regarding awards or grants have yet been made, the benefits or amounts that will be received by or allocated to the Company’s executive officers or other eligible employees or non-employee directors cannot be determined at this time.



Equity Compensation Plan Information for 2017



As of December 31, 2017, the Historical Plans had outstanding securities and securities available to be awarded, as follows:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Number of securities

 

 

 

 

 



 

to be issued upon

 

Weighted-average

 

Remaining securities



 

exercise of outstanding

 

exercise price

 

available to be awarded



 

stock options and restricted

 

of outstanding

 

under share-based

Plan Category

 

stock units

 

stock options

 

compensation plan

Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historical Plans

 

4,360,018 

 

$

20.66 

 

1,554,364 

Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security Holders

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 —

Total

 

4,360,018 

 

$

20.66 

 

1,554,364 



Required Vote



The affirmative vote of a majority of the votes duly cast is required to approve this Proposal 3.



THE TUTOR PERINI BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS SHAREHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL TO ADOPT THE NEW TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

  



24

 


 

 

PROPOSAL 4: ADVISORY (NON-BINDING) VOTE ON TUTOR PERINI’S EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION



Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the Company seek an advisory (non-binding) vote from its shareholders to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”), as disclosed in the CD&A and tabular disclosures of this proxy statement.



As described in detail in the CD&A, we seek to provide our executives with appropriate incentives to drive the success of our business. We strive to design an executive compensation program that is primarily performance-based, encourages executives to further the overall business strategy of the Company and aligns our NEOs’ interests with those of our shareholders. We provide compensation that is highly competitive and designed to attract and retain high-quality executives that can deliver successful results.



Since 2017, the Company and the Compensation Committee have made considerable improvements with regard to executive compensation, directly in response to various concerns expressed by shareholders and independent proxy advisors. These areas of improvement include diversification of performance metrics, increasing the length of performance periods for long-term incentive compensation, reductions of share pledging, linking CEO pay more closely to performance and better explaining the level of CEO pay, among others (see details starting on page 29). The improvements demonstrate the Company’s regard for its shareholders’ opinions and its willingness to effect changes necessary to warrant shareholder support for its executive compensation.



The vote on this resolution is not intended to address any specific element of compensation; rather, the vote relates to the overall compensation of our NEOs, as described in this proxy statement. We believe that the Company’s executive compensation program has been effective at appropriately aligning pay and performance and enabling the Company to attract and retain highly talented executives within our industry.



The vote on this resolution, commonly referred to as the “Say on Pay” resolution, is advisory and, therefore, not binding on the Company, the Compensation Committee or the Board. Although the vote is non-binding, the Compensation Committee will review the voting results in connection with its on-going evaluation of and future decisions regarding additional changes and improvements to the Company’s executive compensation program.



Board Recommendation



THE TUTOR PERINI BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS SHAREHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:



“RESOLVED, that the shareholders approve the compensation awarded by the Company to the Named Executive Officers, as described in the CD&A, tabular disclosures and other narrative executive compensation disclosures in this proxy statement as required by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.”



25

 


 

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS



The following table sets forth certain information about our executive officers:







 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

Name

 

Age

 

Position

Ronald N. Tutor

 

77

 

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Gary G. Smalley

 

59

 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

James A. Frost

 

65

 

President and Chief Operating Officer

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

62

 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Building Group (since June 6, 2017)

Craig W. Shaw

 

63

 

Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Building Group (through June 6, 2017)



For biographical summaries of Mr. Tutor and Mr. Frost, who are also directors, see Proposal 1 starting on page 4.



Gary G. Smalley has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Tutor Perini Corporation since September 2015. Previously, he held several financial management roles, also in the engineering and construction industry, during nearly 24 years with Fluor Corporation (“Fluor”). With Fluor, he served as Senior Vice President and Controller for seven years, as Group Chief Financial Officer for one of Fluor's business segments, as Vice President of Internal Audit and in several other financial operations roles in Australia, Chile, Mexico and the United States. Prior to joining Fluor, he held audit positions with Ernst & Young LLP and J.P. Stevens and Company. Mr. Smalley holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Master of Business Administration from Northwestern University. He is a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Fraud Examiner and a Chartered Global Management Accountant.



Leonard J. Rejcek has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Tutor Perini’s Building Group since June 2017. Mr. Rejcek also serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of Tutor Perini Building Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary within the Company’s Building Group. Mr. Rejcek has over 33 years of experience in the construction industry, most recently providing construction consulting services from 2013 to 2017, and prior to that serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of Manhattan Construction Company from 2006 to 2013. Mr. Rejcek holds a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction from Texas A&M University and has been recognized as a distinguished alumnus of the Texas A&M School of Architecture.



Craig W. Shaw served as Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of Tutor Perini’s Building Group from May 2013 through June 2017. He continues to serve the Company as an Executive Vice President focusing on preconstruction services and large project pursuits. Mr. Shaw also previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Tutor Perini Building Corp., one of the business units within the Building Group, from May 2007 through June 2017. Prior to that, he served in various project and executive management positions, including as President of Perini Building Company after joining the Company in 1978. Mr. Shaw holds a Bachelor of Science in Construction Engineering from Arizona State University.



Our officers are elected on an annual basis at the Board of Directors’ meeting immediately preceding the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to hold such offices until the Board of Directors’ meeting preceding the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until their respective successors have been duly appointed or until their earlier resignation or removal.





COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



This section addresses executive compensation in 2017 for our named executive officers (“NEOs”): Ronald N. Tutor, Gary G. Smalley, James A. Frost, Leonard J. Rejcek and Craig W. Shaw. Our core compensation philosophy is based on the concept of pay-for-performance. Accordingly, our executive compensation program is predicated on providing performance-based compensation to our NEOs that can allow them to earn amounts that are greater than their base salary if they achieve financial goals that the Compensation Committee and the Board believe are critical to enhancing shareholder value. The following discussion will cover our executive compensation practices and the unique factors that play into these practices. We will discuss our 2017 financial highlights, the outcome of the 2017 advisory vote on our executive compensation, our robust shareholder outreach efforts and the progress and improvements we have made on governance and executive compensation. Finally, we will discuss the process the Compensation Committee follows in deciding how to compensate our NEOs and the various elements of the NEOs’ compensation.



26

 


 

 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND PRACTICES



Tutor Perini’s executive compensation program is designed to reflect appropriate compensation practices aligned with the needs of our business. Below is a summary of our compensation practices that drive performance in alignment with shareholder interests, followed by a list of those we do not practice.





WHAT WE DO:

Pay-for-Performance Philosophy – The majority of executive compensation for our NEOs is performance-based and is tied to our financial performance. We utilize aggressive, but achievable, performance targets to provide our executives strong incentives to maximize shareholder value. As a result, our NEOs may earn significantly less than their potential targeted total compensation in a given year due to forfeitures of some or all of their short- and long-term incentive compensation. See page 33 for further details.

Ongoing Shareholder Outreach Program – We maintain an open and regular dialogue with our institutional shareholders to understand their views about our executive compensation program and to provide the Company’s compensation perspectives. See page 29 for further details.

Benchmarking – We benchmark our NEOs’ compensation annually against our peer group when evaluating and setting our executive compensation.

Double-Trigger Equity Acceleration upon a Change-in-Control – The Company has implemented double-trigger equity acceleration upon a change-in-control for long-term incentive equity awards, which provides for immediate vesting upon a change-in-control only if the executive is involuntarily terminated (without cause) in conjunction with that change-in-control.

Stock Ownership Policy – The Company maintains a stock ownership policy whereby the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Executive Officer’s direct reports are expected to maintain stock ownership levels, dependent on their role, within five years of appointment. The Chief Executive Officer is subject to a guideline of six times base salary and executive officers that report directly to the Chief Executive Officer are subject to a guideline of three times base salary. As of the most recent measurement date, all NEOs are in compliance with the policy. In addition, the Company’s non-employee directors are expected to maintain stock ownership at a level representing at least five times the directors’ annual cash retainer within five years from the date of their election to the Board. As of the most recent measurement date, all non-employee directors are in compliance with the policy.

Stock Retention Policy – NEOs, as well as non-employee directors and certain other executives designated by the Compensation Committee, are required to maintain ownership of at least 75% of net shares acquired via grants of equity-based compensation until they are no longer with the Company. As of the most recent measurement date, all NEOs, non-employee directors and other executives so designated by the Compensation Committee were in compliance with this policy.

Clawback Policy – The Company has a clawback policy whereby any future short- and long-term incentive awards are subject to a clawback provision allowing the Company to recoup any incentives earned based on financial information that is later restated, in specific circumstances.

Mitigation of Undue Risk – Our compensation program has provisions to mitigate undue risk, including caps on the maximum level of payouts and clawback provisions. Risk identification and mitigation processes established by management and our Board’s oversight of these processes also serve to deter unacceptable risk taking. In summary, we do not believe that our compensation program creates risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company.

Independent Executive Compensation Consultant – The Compensation Committee worked with an independent executive compensation consultant on compensation-related matters. The consultant provided no other services to Tutor Perini.







WHAT WE DON’T DO:

No Excise Tax Gross-Ups Upon Change-in-Control – The Company has no agreements in place that would provide Section 280G excise tax gross-ups to any NEO in the event of a termination following a change-in-control, and the Company will not enter into any new agreements that would provide such gross-ups.

27

 


 

 

No Repricing of Underwater Stock Options

No Discounted Stock Option Grants

No Permitted Hedging, Short Sales or Derivative Transactions in Company Stock



2017 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS AND BUSINESS OUTLOOK



Our executive compensation program is designed to incentivize NEOs and employees to deliver superior financial results, which we believe will directly translate into shareholder value creation.



2017 Financial Highlights



·

Generated $163.6 million of cash from operating activities (a record annual level) through management’s intense focus on working capital management, including improving the Company’s billing and collections cycle.



·

Operating cash flow generation was 44.3% better than 2016.



·

Operating cash exceeded net income for the second consecutive year.



·

Added approximately $5.8 billion of new awards* and adjustments to existing contracts.



·

Increased backlog* by 17% year-over-year, ending the year with a strong backlog of $7.3 billion, more than three-quarters of which is associated with higher-margin civil and specialty projects.



As a result of the Company’s financial performance in 2017, particularly with respect to the record operating cash generation, most of our NEOs earned above-target annual incentive (bonus) compensation awards for the year. For more information, see “Annual Incentive Compensation” starting on page 37.



Business Outlook



·

We have booked more than $1.6 billion of new awards in the first quarter of 2018 and anticipate backlog growth in 2018.



·

We expect profitable growth and solid operating cash results, with operating cash again exceeding net income in 2018.



·

We anticipate higher operating profit in 2018 as a result of better operating margins in our Specialty Contractors segment and consistent operating margins in our Civil and Building segments.



·

Significant bipartisan support and a strong focus on infrastructure spending—from the passage of $200 billion of voter-approved transportation measures in recent elections to the Trump Administration’s proposed $1.5 trillion infrastructure spending program—is bolstering demand across our end markets.



·

Even before the impact of the above-mentioned factors, we have already seen and continue to experience robust demand and a high level of bidding activity across our business, and we expect this activity to continue over at least the next several years.



____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*New awards and backlog, as presented herein, are supplemental measures of our performance. These measures are not required by or presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). Management uses new awards and backlog to assist in forecasting future results.



o

New awards consist of the original contract price of projects added to our backlog plus or minus subsequent changes to the estimated total contract price of existing contracts.



o

Backlog in our industry is a measure of the total value of work that is remaining to be performed on projects that have been awarded. We include a construction project in our backlog when a contract is awarded or when we have otherwise received written definitive notice that the project has been awarded to us and there are no remaining major uncertainties that the project will proceed (e.g., we believe adequate funding is in place).

28

 


 

 

Tutor Perini’s Five-Year Stock Performance



For the five-year period ending December 31, 2017, our stock price increased at a 13.1% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR), compared to a 7.5% average CAGR for the publicly traded companies in our peer group. Tutor Perini ranked at the 67th percentile among its publicly traded peers for this five-year CAGR measurement.



WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE GOING



2017 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation



At our 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, less than a majority of the votes cast by our shareholders supported the executive compensation of our NEOs. The Company and the Compensation Committee considered the result of the voting in assessing whether there was a need for modification or enhancement of our executive compensation program and other governance issues. While the Company and the Compensation Committee generally believe that our existing executive compensation program properly encourages and rewards the achievement of financial results that promote long-term shareholder value creation, they have taken significant steps toward addressing many of the most common concerns expressed by our shareholders and proxy advisory firms. Further details about these efforts are discussed below.



Shareholder Outreach Program



Since 2012, we have conducted an ongoing shareholder outreach program to maintain an open and regular dialogue with our institutional shareholders to understand their views and concerns regarding our executive compensation program. Additionally, this outreach program is intended to provide insight to our shareholders regarding the Company’s unique evolution, history and position in its industry, and the relative lack of comparability between Tutor Perini and other public companies in terms of its size, industry focus and operations. Our outreach program has included productive discussions regarding certain policy changes the Company has implemented over the past few years in light of its recent advisory votes on executive compensation.



Most recently, in early 2018, we invited our top 28 institutional shareholders, representing nearly two-thirds of our outstanding shares, as well as two of the largest independent proxy advisory firms, to discuss their views and proxy voting guidelines with respect to our executive compensation program and disclosures. As a result, we held discussions with institutional shareholders that represented approximately 33% of our shares outstanding, and also with the largest independent proxy advisory firm. Topics discussed with shareholders recently, as well as over the past few years, have included the level of CEO compensation, our compensation disclosure, equity award vesting periods, performance-based vesting criteria and metrics, board and committee composition, share pledging, voting standards for director elections, talent management and succession planning. The participants of Tutor Perini’s shareholder outreach team consist of our Chief Financial Officer, our Vice President of Investor Relations and the chair of our Compensation Committee. The Company and the Compensation Committee intend to continue to expand this outreach program by increasing the frequency of its outreach efforts in order to facilitate shareholder input into the Company’s compensation philosophy.



Recent Actions Taken Based on Shareholder and Proxy Advisor Feedback



The following table summarizes various concerns that have been expressed by shareholders and proxy advisors and how we have addressed the issues:





 

 

 

Concern

 

 

How We Have Been Responsive

1.Need for greater transparency regarding shareholder outreach feedback and actions taken in response to that feedback

 

 

We have provided details in the CD&A regarding concerns expressed by shareholders and independent proxy advisors and the various changes we have implemented to address the concerns, from both a compensation and governance perspective.

2.Mixed responsiveness to low Say on Pay vote

 

 

The Company and Compensation Committee have taken various significant steps detailed in this CD&A, to make executive compensation and governance improvements requested by shareholders.

29

 


 

 

Concern

 

 

How We Have Been Responsive

3.CEO pay-for-performance

 

 

No salary increase was approved for our CEO in 2017.

4.Level of total CEO compensation

 

 

Mr. Tutor’s total compensation is lower than some of the CEOs in our peer group, including two CEOs whose respective company’s five-year stock performance has been substantially lower in comparison to Tutor Perini’s performance. In addition, while our pay-for-performance-based executive compensation program can reward strong performance with high compensation, our NEOs can receive and have, in fact, received far less than their targeted and proxy-reported compensation when performance goals are not achieved.

 

For example, in 2015, Mr. Tutor forfeited approximately $8.3 million of unearned short- and long-term incentive compensation because performance targets were not met, and in 2017, Mr. Tutor forfeited approximately $5.6 million of unearned long-term incentive compensation related to his initial 3-year relative total shareholder return (TSR) based equity grant (see page 41).

 

To make the foregoing points more clear, since 2017 we have included enhanced disclosures regarding Mr. Tutor’s significant value to the Company, the Company’s historical private company heritage and the key differences between Mr. Tutor and other CEOs in our industry (see "Unique Factors" section on page 35) to help explain his level of compensation. Finally, Mr. Tutor’s total realized compensation over the last three years (see page 44) was significantly lower than his total compensation as required to be reported in the proxy on the Summary Compensation Table (page 42).

5.Composition of peer group

 

 

In response to shareholder concerns, beginning in 2018 the Company will no longer include privately held companies or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies in its peer group used for executive compensation purposes.

6.Lack of diversity in performance metrics for short-term incentive compensation

 

 

In response to suggestions that the Company utilize metrics other than pre-tax income for annual incentive compensation, beginning in 2017 the Company and Compensation Committee implemented the following performance metrics for short-term (annual bonus) incentive compensation: pre-tax income (50% weighting); operating cash flow (30%); safety (10%); and individual performance (10%). The addition of the operating cash flow metric had an immediate positive effect, helping the Company to generate a record level of operating cash flow in 2017. Furthermore, the addition of the safety metric has positively resulted in an even greater focus on a culture of safety throughout the Company’s operations.



30

 


 

 



 

 

 

Concern

 

 

How We Have Been Responsive

7.Lack of a performance metric or other mechanism to incentivize cash flow generation

 

 

The Company utilizes a quality of earnings metric for annual (bonus) incentive compensation. This metric is intended to ensure that each business unit’s annual bonus payments are fully paid provided that the business unit’s annual pre-tax income does not include a substantial amount of unapproved change orders or claims recorded at the business unit. In other words, if a business unit achieves its annual pre-tax income performance target, a secondary test is performed to ensure that the achievement did not include an excessive amount of unapproved change orders or claims for which cash collection could be significantly delayed. The goal in utilizing this metric is to motivate business unit and other key executives to promptly get their change orders and claims approved, resolved and invoiced for collection.

 

This metric, in addition to the operating cash flow metric described above in #6, has enabled the Company to significantly improve its operating cash flow over the past two years.

8.Lack of diversity in performance metrics for long-term incentive compensation

 

 

In 2017, the Company and the Compensation Committee implemented a policy requiring all new long-term incentive performance-based awards to include at least one relative return metric, such as 3-year relative TSR, and discontinued its use of pre-tax income as the sole performance measure for long-term incentive awards.

9.Short (one-year) performance periods for most long-term incentive compensation awards

 

 

In 2017, the Company and Compensation Committee implemented a policy to cease utilizing one-year performance periods for future long-term incentive awards.

10.Short minimum vesting period for long-term incentive compensation plan

 

 

Our Incentive Compensation Plan includes a one-year minimum vesting period for awards under the Plan, with the exception of awards to non-employee directors. Furthermore, time-based (or service-based) restricted stock and RSU awards are subject to a three-year minimum vesting period. (However, as is common practice, we may grant up to 5% of the share pool without subjecting such grants to the minimum vesting requirement.)

11.Lack of a relative return-based metric for most long-term incentive compensation awards

 

 

As mentioned above, in 2017 the Company and Compensation Committee implemented the use of at least one relative return metric, such as 3-year relative TSR, for its long-term incentive compensation performance-based awards.

12.Alignment of annual incentive compensation between CEO and other NEOs

 

 

In 2017, the Compensation Committee improved the alignment between the CEO and other NEOs with respect to annual incentive compensation payout opportunities. Previously, through 2016, our NEOs’ potential annual bonus payouts were capped at 100% of target, except for our CEO’s bonus, which was capped at approximately 143% of target. Beginning in 2017, Mr. Frost and Mr. Smalley were eligible for a maximum potential bonus payout at 150% of target, and beginning in 2018 all NEOs other than the CEO are eligible for the same maximum potential bonus payout. Providing above-target maximum payouts to NEOs is common practice among companies in our peer group. Our CEO’s maximum bonus payout was also increased in 2017 from 143% of target to 200% of target, which is consistent with the maximum payouts provided to various CEOs in our peer group. See page 38 for further details regarding the payout ranges for all our NEOs. Maximum payouts that are above 100% of target can only occur in cases where performance is well above target.





31

 


 

 



 

 

 

Concern

 

 

How We Have Been Responsive

13.Cash bonus paid to CEO in 2015 for succession planning

 

 

The Compensation Committee understands shareholders’ concerns related to this bonus. The Committee’s primary objective in making this award, beyond its desire to identify and select an appropriate successor to our current CEO, was to substantially deepen the broader leadership team by identifying and hiring a number of qualified executives to help assume the substantial number of diverse responsibilities that have been borne principally by the current CEO. This effort continues and has already helped prepare the Company for the large influx of civil project opportunities believed to be on the horizon. The $1.25 million portion of our CEO’s original $5.0 million succession planning bonus that has not yet been paid remains payable to him upon his completion of certain succession plan milestones. Beyond this final payment of that original bonus, the Compensation Committee has no current plans to consider significant future bonuses to our CEO that could be considered discretionary.

14.Share pledging

 

 

The number of shares pledged by Mr. Tutor was decreased significantly in 2017, from 4.5 million to 2.5 million shares. The remaining shares pledged by Mr. Tutor now represent a substantially smaller portion of the approximately 8.8 million shares he owns. In 2017, Mr. Frost did not completely unwind his pre-existing pledge arrangements, but the number of shares pledged by Mr. Frost decreased significantly, from 447,266 to 229,861 shares and, as a result, now represent a substantially smaller portion of the 577,276 shares he owns. The 229,861 shares are subject to a long-standing pledge by Mr. Frost as collateral for a long-standing loan. No other director or NEO has any pledged shares. Furthermore, in 2017 the Company implemented a policy that discourages future share pledging for NEOs and directors, encourages the continued unwinding of existing share pledges for NEOs and limits any future share pledging for NEOs and directors to 30% of the shares owned by the pledgor.

15.No specific prohibition in equity plan against payment of dividends on unvested shares

 

 

Our Incentive Compensation Plan now more clearly prohibits the payment of dividends on any unvested shares (for both time-based and performance-based awards). Note that this is a clarification of the Company’s policy since we have not previously paid dividends on unvested shares.



32

 


 

 

Establishing Executive Compensation



Compensation Philosophy, Objectives and Risk Assessment



Our executive compensation program is built upon the philosophy of “pay-for-performance” and is intended to:



·

Link executive compensation to our business strategy. The Company’s executive compensation program is intended to reward progress made toward the achievement of strategic business goals. The Company expects the substantial volume of large infrastructure project opportunities on the horizon to result in backlog growth, higher revenue, improved profitability and strong operating cash flow. With the improved financial performance, key employees have the opportunity to benefit from higher performance-based incentive compensation payouts that could be further enhanced in some cases if the Company’s market valuation also improves.



·

Provide compensation that is highly competitive. The Company’s executive compensation program is designed to provide a highly competitive pay package to attract and retain the most qualified executive talent with the ability to secure, manage and successfully execute profitable projects. We aim to provide total target compensation (i.e., the sum of base salary, target annual bonus compensation and target long-term incentive compensation) to our NEOs that is in or near the upper quartile with respect to company peers and, in situations involving extraordinary performance and value to the Company, provide total compensation to our NEOs that may reach the top end of market pay.



·

Have a significant portion of pay that is performance-based. The Company expects superior performance in return for superior compensation. Our executive compensation program rewards executives when performance results meet or exceed pre-determined targets. The Compensation Committee believes that compensation paid to executives should be closely aligned with the performance of the Company relative to these targets. As detailed below beginning on page 34, the majority of our NEOs’ total target compensation is performance-based, or “at risk.”



·

Align the interests of NEOs with those of shareholders. The Compensation Committee believes that executives should have a meaningful ownership interest in the Company and, as such, maintains and regularly reviews executive stock ownership guidelines. In addition, our executive compensation program is designed to align our NEOs’ interests with the interests of shareholders, who desire long-term value creation.



In recognition of the cyclicality and variability of the construction industry, we believe that compensation focusing on both variable short-term and long-term corporate goals is appropriate for Tutor Perini and our shareholders. This incentive approach provides greater rewards for higher performance and has been effective in retaining and motivating our highest-performing key executive talent. As a result, our compensation practices for our NEOs have a significant focus on annual “variable pay” incentive awards. Long-term incentive awards have periodically been granted to select executives when the Compensation Committee has determined an award to be appropriate based upon the Company’s strategic goals, an executive’s superior performance and the value of the executive to the Company. Importantly, the vast majority of the periodic long-term incentive equity grants to our current NEOs during the past five years have been performance-based.



The Company and its industry remain at a crucial point for attracting and retaining top executive talent. There is substantial pent-up demand following decades of underinvestment in public infrastructure and a current environment of strong bipartisan support that is conducive to infrastructure spending. Given this backdrop and the strong demand we continue to experience even before the swell of new infrastructure spending arrives, we anticipate an extraordinary period of even greater demand driven by large complex civil projects over at least the next several years. Therefore, it is critically important that we maintain an executive compensation program that is most attractive and rewarding to our key executives and prospective new executives.



The Compensation Committee reviews the Company's compensation philosophy and objectives each year to determine if revisions are necessary in light of market conditions, the Company's strategic goals or other relevant factors. As detailed earlier in this CD&A, the Company and Compensation Committee have made significant progress and improvements to our executive compensation program in response to shareholder and proxy advisor feedback and have also worked with the Board to effect certain governance improvements.



Management and the Compensation Committee review annually the incentive compensation we provide to our NEOs in relation to market data for our peer group, including evaluating the mix of compensation elements, performance metrics and targets, and risk management practices. Based on this review, the Company and the Compensation Committee concluded that our executive compensation program is designed to appropriately align compensation for our NEOs and other executives with our business strategy and does not encourage behavior that could create material adverse risks to the Company. The review identified several risk mitigating factors, such as capped incentive payouts, clawback provisions and independent Compensation Committee oversight of compensation

33

 


 

 

plans. Additionally, the review identified a clearly articulated philosophy and peer group, use of competitive market data, and an effective use of cash and strategic equity grants that all contribute to a balanced pay program.



To execute the executive compensation strategy, the Compensation Committee works with management to determine compensation for the NEOs. The Compensation Committee believes that the CEO is best positioned to evaluate the performance of our other NEOs. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee works closely with Mr. Tutor in establishing the compensation of our other NEOs. The CEO reviews performance of the executive officers and based on his assessment makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee for approval of base salary and the metrics and targets for both annual incentive (bonus) compensation and long-term incentive equity awards. The Compensation Committee also reviews the CEO’s performance and, based on his performance, makes recommendations regarding CEO compensation to the independent directors of the Board for approval. Additionally, the Compensation Committee reviews available competitive external market data. As part of this process, the Compensation Committee occasionally receives independent advice and recommendations from Meridian, which serves as the Compensation Committee’s executive compensation consultant.



The Compensation Committee, at its regularly scheduled March meeting, reviews and approves the annual incentive compensation performance targets, as well as our long-term equity award performance targets for awards granted in that year to executive officers. The Compensation Committee, also at this time, reviews performance against the plan provisions and associated expense implications of the annual incentive compensation amounts earned for the previous year, retaining discretion as to the final incentive compensation for subsequent approval. The Compensation Committee may set salary for the CEO and approve cash incentive awards and equity awards for executive officers at other times to reflect promotions, new hires or other special circumstances.



Our Compensation Targets



We do not target a specific mix of pay for our executive officers. We set base salary, annual incentive and long-term incentive compensation opportunities and target total compensation annually, in light of our evaluation of competitive market factors. Concurrent with that process, we review pay levels for peer company executives, and each executive officer’s performance and experience. This process provides guidelines for establishing the mix of pay for our executives, in terms of short-term versus long-term compensation. As reflected in the following charts, long-term performance-based incentive compensation made up 60% of target total compensation for our CEO and 45% on average for our other NEOs in 2017. The total portion of performance-based compensation (includes both the annual and long-term incentive compensation) was 84% of our CEO’s target total compensation and averaged 58% for our other NEOs target total compensation in 2017. These significant percentages of pay “at risk” reinforce the alignment of our executive officers with our shareholders.



Picture 1

CEO - BASE SALARY, ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (IC) AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LTIC) AS A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR 2017 16% Base Salary 60% LTIC (performance-based) 24% Annual IC (performance based)

34

 


 

 

Picture 2

OTHER NEOs - AVERAGE BASE SALARY, ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (IC) AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LTIC) AS A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR 2017 15% Base Salary 45% LTIC (performance-based) 26% LTIC (time-based) 13% Annual IC (performance based) 1% Other(1)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

OTHER NEOs AVERAGE BASE SALARY, ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (IC) AND LONGTERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LTIC) AS A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR 2017 71% LTIC 15% Base Salary 15% Annual IC

(1)

Represents the average value of other bonus (not performance-based) paid to our other NEOs.



We calculate target total compensation (the sum of base salary, target annual bonus and target annual long-term incentive compensation) for each of our executive officers to confirm that it is appropriate for the position and we make adjustments where appropriate. We target executive officers’ total compensation to be highly competitive (generally in or near the upper quartile) relative to the companies in our peer group. Executive officers may then earn actual total compensation at a level that can be well above or below the peer group median, depending upon performance. See page 40 for a summary of how our actual total compensation in 2017 compares to targeted parameters.



Unique Factors Play into our Executive Compensation Decisions and Practices



Since the 2008 merger that created Tutor Perini, Mr. Tutor has been a key driving force—both strategically and operationally—behind the Company’s growth and evolution into a stronger, vertically integrated and broader geographic player in the market. Mr. Tutor has transformed the Company from a firm primarily involved in lower-margin building work to one that today boasts a broad nationwide footprint with a large component of higher-margin civil and specialty construction services. With the current focus on and public support for infrastructure spending, one common area of agreement among politicians, we continue to see a very high level of bidding activity for large civil projects and anticipate an even greater level of demand for our services over the next several years. Consequently, our growth over the next several years is expected to be driven by a significant volume of higher-margin civil project opportunities and a considerable volume of larger, complex building project opportunities, such as the $1.4 billion Newark Airport Terminal One design-build project that we won in early 2018. The Company’s unique history and evolution, in particular the private company legacy of Tutor-Saliba, a heavy civil and building construction company that Mr. Tutor owned, operated and grew over several decades, has had a substantial impact on the Company’s executive compensation practices.



Mr. Tutor’s value to the Company is significant and his level of compensation reflects, in part, his high retention value, which is particularly important today given the current environment of strong support for infrastructure spending and the anticipated influx of large civil project opportunities over the next several years. Mr. Tutor has a high degree of direct involvement in strategic planning and decisions, and an extremely in-depth knowledge and involvement in many operational functions, from project selection and bidding decisions to day-to-day client relationship management and oversight of many of the Company’s largest projects. He also plays an instrumental role in navigating and negotiating the legal processes related to various disputes over our claims, unapproved change orders and other matters (e.g., Mr. Tutor’s central role in guiding the Company’s strategy in obtaining a $37 million litigation settlement payment in 2017). Mr. Tutor’s level of direct involvement in all of these functions is truly unique among CEOs in our industry. All of the above factors were considered by the Compensation Committee in its determination as to the appropriateness of Mr. Tutor’s compensation.



35

 


 

 

Tutor Perini is a construction services company that competes with many other public and private companies for projects and for executive talent. Our closest competitors for projects are primarily large privately held firms or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent firms, whose focus and revenues stem largely from construction services and less from design and engineering services. In contrast, the revenues of many of the larger publicly traded companies with which we sometimes compete are primarily derived from consulting, design, architecture and engineering services, rather than construction services. Our Board and executive management have found through various succession planning activities that overall executive compensation levels at our privately held and U.S. subsidiary competitors tend to be higher when compared to compensation levels at our publicly traded peers. While Mr. Tutor’s compensation is higher than the compensation of CEOs at some of the Company’s public peers, it is also lower than the compensation of some of the CEOs in our peer group. The Board believes Mr. Tutor’s compensation is comparable to the compensation of CEOs at non-public industry peers and knows that it is significantly lower than his compensation under the Company’s predecessor, Tutor-Saliba.



The construction markets in which the Company operates are inherently cyclical and demand levels fluctuate significantly more than in the markets for consulting, engineering and design services. Throughout these cycles, we strive to ensure that our executive compensation program remains consistent with the competitive labor markets for executive talent, especially in comparison with the privately held and U.S. subsidiary peers with which we compete. The Compensation Committee considers, when available, private company compensation data and construction market cyclicality and volatility as important factors when evaluating the Company’s executive compensation program. Because we believe the construction industry is at an inflection point with many significant new opportunities on the horizon, it is particularly important that we maintain a highly competitive executive compensation program to attract and retain the top talent needed to successfully capitalize on these future opportunities.



Peer Group Comparisons



The Compensation Committee reviews the Company’s peer group on an annual basis to ensure that it continues to be valid for analyzing and determining executive compensation for the Company. The peer group companies are selected based on various criteria considered by the Compensation Committee, including industry, revenue and market capitalization. As a result of this peer group review and evaluation, the Compensation Committee approved the Company’s 2017 peer group (listed below) for its assessment of executive compensation in 2017. The Compensation Committee believed that, for 2017, this peer group represented an ideal, industry-focused group of companies with which Tutor Perini competes for projects and executive talent. Furthermore, the Compensation Committee believed that this peer group provided a better representation of the competition that influences the Company’s compensation decisions compared to other peer groups selected and used by certain proxy advisory firms that consider peer companies across a wider spectrum of industries.



The Compensation Committee utilized compensation data for the subset of 12 public companies in the peer group to assess the relative competitiveness of the compensation for the Company’s NEOs in 2017 by reviewing market information on the peer group NEOs’ base salaries, annual incentive compensation and long-term incentive compensation.



The following table shows the companies included in the Company’s 2017 peer group:





 



 

2017 Peer Group

AECOM

Kiewit Corp.*

Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.

McDermott International, Inc.

Dycom Industries, Inc.

Parsons Corp.*

EMCOR Group, Inc.

PCL Constructors, Inc.*

Flatiron Construction Corp.*

Quanta Services, Inc.

Fluor Corporation

Skanska USA (part of Skanska AB)*

Granite Construction, Inc.

Sterling Construction Co.

Henkels & McCoy, Inc.*

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Turner Construction Co.*

KBR, Inc.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Privately held company or a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign parent company



In response to continued concerns expressed by certain shareholders and independent proxy advisory firms regarding our inclusion of private companies and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies in our peer group, the Compensation Committee has decided to remove these peers, as well as Sterling Construction, from our peer group used for executive compensation considerations in 2018. Sterling Construction was removed due to its small size (revenue, market capitalization) and limited geographic footprint compared to Tutor Perini. Furthermore, Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. is expected to be removed from our 2018 peer group upon completion of its acquisition by McDermott International, Inc.

36

 


 

 



Elements of Compensation



Our executive compensation program relies on a combination of cash and share-based compensation to retain and motivate our NEOs based on strategic goals, superior performance and the value of the executive to the Company.



Base Salary



We provide base salaries that are highly competitive in order to compensate our NEOs for the services that they provide. Salary levels are also established in consideration of the value of the executive to the Company and as a means of retention. Effective January 1, 2017, Mr. Smalley’s base salary was increased from $700,000 to $950,000 to reflect his significant contributions and value to the Company, including his successful leadership of the Company’s cash generation turnaround efforts. On June 6, 2017, Mr. Rejcek joined the Company as President and CEO of the Building Group. His initial base salary was set at $650,000 and, in accordance with the terms of his employment offer letter, his base salary was increased to $725,000 effective December 1, 2017. No changes to base salaries were made for any of our other NEOs in 2017.



Annual Incentive Compensation



The Compensation Committee believes that providing meaningful performance-based cash compensation provides executives with an incentive to achieve the Company’s strategic goals. To provide appropriate incentives to our current NEOs, 50% to 60% (depending on position) of their target annual cash compensation is comprised of an annual incentive bonus opportunity that is paid only if Tutor Perini achieves pre-established performance goals set by the Compensation Committee.



For 2017, the Compensation Committee implemented the use of four diverse performance metrics for the annual bonus plan: pre-tax income (50% weighting); operating cash flow (30%); safety (10%, as measured against the OSHA Recordable Incident Rate); and individual performance (10%, a discretionary measure against pre-established goals). These metrics were chosen because: 1) pre-tax income is tracked closely at the project level and is very useful for measuring profitability across the Company’s projects and business units; 2) operating cash flow is a very important financial metric to the Company and its shareholders and consistent, strong cash generation can significantly enhance the Company’s share-price valuation; 3) implementation of a safety metric is aligned with the Company’s goal to promote workplace safety and reduce insurance-related costs; and 4) an individual performance metric reflects our NEOs’ contributions to overall Company performance, cultural and operational improvements, and talent development and succession planning accomplishments. The Company and the Compensation Committee believe that a focus on maximizing these metrics best promotes shareholder value creation over the long term.



The Compensation Committee established a target annual bonus opportunity for each NEO, stated as a percentage of each NEO’s base salary. The annual bonus was only payable if Tutor Perini achieved financial performance goals established at the beginning of the performance period by the Compensation Committee.



The following table presents the performance targets and ranges for each of the performance metrics related to annual incentive (bonus) compensation of our NEOs for 2017, excluding Mr. Rejcek, who received a guaranteed bonus equal to 100% of his earned salary in 2017 in accordance with the terms of his employment offer letter:





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

2017 Performance Ranges

(dollars in thousands)

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

Consolidated (applicable to Mr. Tutor, Mr. Smalley and Mr. Frost)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-tax income

 

80 

%

 

$

146,638 

 

100 

%

 

$

183,297 

 

120 

%

 

$

219,956 

Cash flow from operations

 

80 

%

 

$

88,000 

 

100 

%

 

$

110,000 

 

120 

%

 

$

132,000 

Safety(1)

 

80 

%

 

 

4.32 

 

100 

%

 

 

3.60 

 

120 

%

 

 

2.88 

Individual performance(2)

 

n.a.

 

n.a.

 

n.a.

Building Group (applicable to Mr. Shaw)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-tax income(3)

 

80 

%

 

 

18,025 

 

100 

%

 

 

22,531 

 

100 

%

 

 

22,531 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

The target metric for safety is the OSHA Recordable Incident Rate.

(2)

Individual performance is a discretionary metric.

(3)

The target for Mr. Shaw was the pre-tax income for the Building Group, excluding results from one business unit.



37

 


 

 

The table below presents the ranges of potential payouts for annual bonus compensation for 2017:





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Payout Ranges

(dollars in thousands)

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

Ronald N. Tutor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-tax income

 

50 

%

 

$

875,000 

 

75 

%

 

$

1,312,500 

 

150 

%

 

$

2,625,000 

Cash flow from operations

 

30 

 

 

 

525,000 

 

45 

 

 

 

787,500 

 

90 

 

 

 

1,575,000 

Safety

 

10 

 

 

 

175,000 

 

15 

 

 

 

262,500 

 

30 

 

 

 

525,000 

Individual performance

 

 —

 

 

 

 —

 

15 

 

 

 

262,500 

 

30 

 

 

 

525,000 

Total

 

90 

%

 

$

1,575,000 

 

150 

%

 

$

2,625,000 

 

300 

%

 

$

5,250,000 

Gary G. Smalley

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-tax income

 

40 

%

 

$

380,000 

 

50 

%

 

$

475,000 

 

75 

%

 

$

712,500 

Cash flow from operations

 

24 

 

 

 

228,000 

 

30 

 

 

 

285,000 

 

45 

 

 

 

427,500 

Safety

 

 

 

 

76,000 

 

10 

 

 

 

95,000 

 

15 

 

 

 

142,500 

Individual performance

 

 —

 

 

 

 —

 

10 

 

 

 

95,000 

 

15 

 

 

 

142,500 

Total

 

72 

%

 

$

684,000 

 

100 

%

 

$

950,000 

 

150 

%

 

$

1,425,000 

James A. Frost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-tax income

 

40 

%

 

$

400,000 

 

50 

%

 

$

500,000 

 

75 

%

 

$

750,000 

Cash flow from operations

 

24 

 

 

 

240,000 

 

30 

 

 

 

300,000 

 

45 

 

 

 

450,000 

Safety

 

 

 

 

80,000 

 

10 

 

 

 

100,000 

 

15 

 

 

 

150,000 

Individual performance

 

 —

 

 

 

 —

 

10 

 

 

 

100,000 

 

15 

 

 

 

150,000 

Total

 

72 

%

 

$

720,000 

 

100 

%

 

$

1,000,000 

 

150 

%

 

$

1,500,000 

Craig W. Shaw(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building group pre-tax income (excluding one business unit)

 

80 

%

 

$

520,019 

 

100 

%

 

$

650,024 

 

100 

%

 

$

650,024 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

Mr. Shaw was an executive officer for only a portion of 2017; therefore, his annual bonus was not subject to the four diverse performance metrics discussed above, but rather solely on pre-tax income for the Building Group, excluding one business unit.



The following table presents the actual performance achievements and payout amounts for our NEOs’ bonus compensation for 2017. These bonuses were earned in 2017 and paid in March 2018.





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(dollars in thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Payout

Metrics

 

Actual Achievement

 

Ronald N.
Tutor

 

Gary G.
Smalley

 

James A.
Frost

 

Craig W.
Shaw

Pre-tax income

 

$

153,975 

 

84 

%

 

$

962,500 

 

$

399,000 

 

$

420,000 

 

$

 —

Cash flow from operations

 

$

163,550 

 

120 

%

 

 

1,575,000 

 

 

427,500 

 

 

450,000 

 

 

 —

Safety

 

 

2.62 

 

120 

%

 

 

525,000 

 

 

142,500 

 

 

150,000 

 

 

 —

Individual performance

 

Maximum(1)

 

 

525,000 

 

 

142,500 

 

 

150,000 

 

 

 —

Building group pre-tax income (excluding one business unit)

 

$

2,591 

 

11 

%

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

 

 

 —

Total Payout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

3,587,500 

 

$

1,111,500 

 

$

1,170,000 

 

$

 —

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

Achievement for NEOs other than the CEO is determined based on an assessment by the CEO and approved by the Compensation Committee. For the CEO, achievement is based on an assessment by the Compensation Committee and subsequent approval by the independent directors of the Board of Directors. Maximum achievement was attained as a result of superior (above-maximum) cash flow and safety performance, as well as favorable contributions to overall Company performance, improvements in the Company’s culture and work processes, and progress in talent development and succession planning efforts.



As previously mentioned, Mr. Rejcek’s employment offer letter provided for payment of a guaranteed bonus for 2017 equal to 100% of his earned salary for the year ($385,418).



Long-Term Incentives



Periodic awards of long-term incentives have played a significant role in our executive compensation program. Historically, the Compensation Committee has made periodic equity awards to select key executives based upon Company strategic goals, executive performance and upon the value of the executive to the Company. Not all executives receive equity awards. During 2017, Mr. Tutor, Mr. Frost and Mr. Smalley were granted equity associated with awards approved in prior years. In addition, Mr. Smalley also received equity grants in accordance with his employment agreement executed in 2017, and Mr. Rejcek received equity grants in accordance with his employment offer letter, also signed in 2017. See below for further details.

38

 


 

 



The Company and the Compensation Committee have historically used pre-tax income as the sole performance metric for long-term equity awards. As mentioned above, the rationale for only using pre-tax income as the performance metric centered upon its value in measuring profitability across the Company’s projects and business units. Furthermore, the Compensation Committee believes that pre-tax income maximization encourages executives to perform projects cost-efficiently, which promotes long-term shareholder value creation.



Equity Awards Approved by the Compensation Committee prior to 2017 but Granted in 2017



During 2017, certain NEOs were granted performance-based restricted stock units (RSUs) and nonqualified stock options (SOs), which were approved by the Compensation Committee prior to 2017, the year when multi-year performance periods began to be utilized (the award date is shown in the below table). The vesting and payout of these awards were conditioned upon achieved performance over a one-year performance period against pre-determined performance goals. The table below shows each equity award’s performance targets, as well as potential and actual payouts (note, for stock options, the achievement of performance targets results in the vesting of the indicated number of shares, though the payout of the option occurs upon the NEO’s exercise of the option).







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Ranges and Payouts

(dollars in thousands, except EPS)

 

Threshold

 

Target/Maximum

 

Actual

Named Executive Officer(1)

 

Type

 

Award Date

 

Metric(2)

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

Ronald N. Tutor

 

RSU

 

12/22/2014

 

1-year Consolidated Pre-Tax Income

 

$

128,308 

 

105,000 

 

$

183,297 

 

150,000 

 

$

153,975 

 

126,006 

Ronald N. Tutor

 

SO

 

12/22/2014

 

1-year Consolidated Pre-Tax Income

 

$

128,308 

 

105,000 

 

$

183,297 

 

150,000 

 

$

153,975 

 

126,006 

Gary G. Smalley

 

RSU

 

09/01/2015

 

1-year Diluted EPS

 

$

1.51 

 

10,500 

 

$

2.15 

 

15,000 

 

$

2.92 

 

15,000 

Gary G. Smalley

 

SO

 

09/01/2015

 

1-year Diluted EPS

 

$

1.51 

 

10,500 

 

$

2.15 

 

15,000 

 

$

2.92 

 

15,000 

James A. Frost

 

RSU

 

04/09/2015

 

1-year Consolidated Pre-Tax Income

 

$

128,308 

 

70,000 

 

$

183,297 

 

100,000 

 

$

153,975 

 

84,004 

James A. Frost

 

SO

 

04/09/2015

 

1-year Consolidated Pre-Tax Income

 

$

128,308 

 

70,000 

 

$

183,297 

 

100,000 

 

$

153,975 

 

84,004 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

This table excludes performance-based equity awards to Mr. Rejcek, which will be granted in future periods.

(2)

The grants shown in the table above were granted pursuant to equity awards made prior to 2017, the year when multi-year performance periods began to be utilized.



Equity Awards Made Pursuant to Mr. Smalley’s 2017 Employment Agreement and Mr. Rejcek’s 2017 Employment Offer Letter



In 2017, the Company implemented a new equity compensation pay mix comprised of 50% performance-based equity awards and 50% time-based equity awards, which is consistent with peer group practices. Based on this new pay mix, the Compensation Committee approved the 2017 equity awards granted to Mr. Smalley as described in the tables below, pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement. In addition, pursuant to the terms of Mr. Rejcek’s employment offer letter, the Compensation Committee approved his 2017 time- and performance-based equity awards, also described below.



Below are the time-based equity awards granted to Mr. Smalley and Mr. Rejcek during 2017:





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Named Executive Officer

 

Type

 

Award Date

 

Vesting Date

 

Number of Units

Gary G. Smalley

 

RSU

 

09/06/2017

 

09/05/2020

 

112,500 

Gary G. Smalley

 

SO

 

09/06/2017

 

09/05/2020

 

112,500 

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

RSU

 

08/16/2017

 

06/01/2021

 

10,000 

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

RSU

 

08/16/2017

 

06/01/2022

 

10,000 

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

SO

 

08/16/2017

 

08/16/2018

 

20,000 

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

SO

 

08/16/2017

 

06/01/2021

 

10,000 

Leonard J. Rejcek

 

SO

 

08/16/2017

 

06/01/2022

 

10,000 

39

 


 

 



The table below presents the performance-based awards granted to Mr. Smalley during 2017:





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Ranges and Payouts



 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

Named Executive Officer

 

Type

 

Award Date

 

Metric

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

 

Achievement
Level

 

Share
Payout

Gary G. Smalley

 

RSU

 

09/06/2017

 

3-Year Total Shareholder Return

 

30th
percentile

 

28,125 

 

50th
percentile

 

112,500 

 

70th
percentile

 

140,625 

Gary G. Smalley

 

SO

 

09/06/2017

 

3-Year Total Shareholder Return

 

30th
percentile

 

28,125 

 

50th
percentile

 

112,500 

 

70th
percentile

 

140,625 



Pursuant to the terms of his employment offer letter, Mr. Rejcek was awarded 20,000 performance-based RSUs and 20,000 performance-based stock options to be granted subsequent to 2017.



Retirement Benefits



Tutor Perini does not provide additional retirement benefits to executive officers beyond what is offered to all employees.



Perquisites



We provide certain perquisites to our executives because of the demand in time and travel, as well as security and productivity factors, required in their leadership across multiple businesses in multiple geographic locations. The perquisites afforded to our NEOs may include vehicle usage and allowances, insurance policy coverage, relocation expense reimbursement and relocation-related benefits. Additionally, Mr. Tutor and Mr. Frost are allowed limited personal use of Company aircraft, per their employment agreements.



Tax Implications



With the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that was signed into law on December 22, 2017, the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code was generally eliminated beginning in 2018 for compensation granted after December 31, 2017. Prior to this tax law change, the Compensation Committee reviewed and considered the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m), which prohibited deduction compensation in excess of $1,000,000 that was paid to named executives other than the Chief Financial Officer unless the compensation qualified as “performance based compensation” as defined under Section 162(m). We believe that the primary goals of our executive compensation program are to attract and retain valued and important NEOs, to align our NEOs’ interest with the corporate goals and objectives important to our shareholders, to motivate our NEOs to achieve these goals and to fairly reward our NEOs for achieving these goals. Accordingly, the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code, while important, was not a determining factor in structuring our program. Therefore, the Compensation Committee has approved certain payments of compensation to our executive officers that were not tax deductible.



HOW TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARES TO TARGETED PARAMETERS



The following table compares each NEO’s total compensation, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table, and targeted parameters for our peer group. As a reminder, we target our executive officers’ total compensation to be highly competitive (generally in or near the upper quartile) relative to the other companies in our peer group, and, in situations involving extraordinary performance and value to the Company, provide compensation to our executive officers that may reach toward the top end of the upper quartile.





 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

Named Executive Officer(1)

 

2017 Total Compensation

 

Result vs. 2017 Peer Group

Ronald N. Tutor

 

$

12,761,030 

 

In the upper quartile

Gary G. Smalley

 

 

11,198,000 

 

In the upper decile

James A. Frost

 

 

6,700,681 

 

In the upper decile

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1)

Mr. Rejcek was excluded from the table above because of partial-year total compensation based on his employment on June 6, 2017. He will be included in this table beginning in the 2019 Proxy Statement. Mr. Shaw was also excluded from the table above because he served as an executive officer for only the first part of 2017.



40

 


 

 

FORFEITURES OF UNEARNED TARGET PLAN-BASED AWARDS



Consistent with the Company’s pay-for-performance philosophy, the Company’s NEOs forfeited unearned portions of their potential incentive-based compensation in 2017, 2016 and 2015 as a result of achieving less than 100% of their applicable performance targets and as summarized in the table below. Note that the forfeited equity incentives were still reported as compensation in the Summary Compensation Table, as required by SEC regulations, even though the compensation was never paid to the respective NEOs.