2018 Guide to Effective Proxies

6 TH EDITION | GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE PROXIES 466 assessed the independence of the Independent Consultant, pursuant to the rules of the SEC and the NYSE, and concluded that the Independent Consultant is independent and no conflict of interest exists with respect to the services provided by the Independent Consultant to the Compensation Committee. During fiscal 2017, the CEO and other members of our senior executive team worked with the Compensation Committee to help ensure that our executive compensation programs are competitive, ethical, and aligned with the Company’s values. For fiscal 2017, compensation decisions for the NEOs (other than our CEO) were made by the Compensation Committee after consultation with the CEO, and the compensation decision with respect to our CEO was approved by the full Board upon recommendation from the Compensation Committee. Assessing Compensation Competitiveness The Compensation Committee, with the help of the Independent Consultant, annually compares each element of compensation to that of an industry peer group. For fiscal 2017, as part of its annual review, the Compensation Committee determined that the peer group should be comprised of (1) construction and engineering firms that are direct competitors with the Company for business and executive management talent or (2) companies that provide consulting or technical services to government and large commercial clients. In addition, to be included, a company would need to be generally within one-third to three times the size of the Company in terms of revenue and market capitalization, evaluated annually. Similar to prior years, in order to assess compensation competitiveness compared to the peer group, the Independent Consultant utilized comparative data disclosed in publicly available proxy statements, other documents filed with the SEC, and data from a comprehensive database of pay information developed by Willis Towers Watson regarding the industry specific and general industry group in which the Company competes for talent. The following chart shows our fiscal 2017 industry peer group, including relevant size and performance data to illustrate the Company’s relative position. Most Recently Available Four Quarters ($M) Employees Market Capitalization as of 9/29/17 ($M) Revenues Net Income Northrop Grumman $25,566 Northrop Grumman $2,362 AECOM Tech 87,000 Raytheon $54,155 Raytheon $24,789 Raytheon $2,153 Northrop Grumman 67,000 Northrop Grumman $50,107 Fluor $19,483 Textron $627 Raytheon 63,000 DXC Technology $24,449 AECOM Tech $18,203 L-3 Communications $576 Fluor 61,551 L-3 Communications $14,739 DXC Technology $15,882 AECOM Tech $339 DXC Technology 60,000 Textron $14,263 Textron $14,006 Leidos $311 Jacobs 54,700 Leidos $8,955 L-3 Communications $11,036 DXC Technology $298 Chicago Bridge & Iron 42,100 SNC-Lavalin $7,915 Leidos $10,229 Jacobs $294 L-3 Communications 38,000 Jacobs $7,011 Jacobs $10,023 Quanta Services $289 Textron 36,000 Fluor $5,890 Chicago Bridge & Iron $9,148 Booz Allen Hamilton $272 SNC-Lavalin 34,952 Quanta Services $5,799 Quanta Services $9,091 SNC-Lavalin $265 Leidos 32,000 AECOM Tech $5,769 EMCOR $7,624 EMCOR $215 EMCOR 31,000 Booz Allen Hamilton $5,559 SNC-Lavalin $6,903 Fluor $202 Quanta Services 28,100 EMCOR $4,106 Booz Allen Hamilton $6,022 CH2M Hill $141 KBR 27,500 KBR $2,501 CH2M Hill $5,081 KBR $72 Booz Allen Hamilton 23,300 Chicago Bridge & Iron $1,700 KBR $4,424 Chicago Bridge & Iron ($1,056) CH2M Hill 20,000 CH2M Hill n/a * 75th Percentile $17,043 $458 60,776 $14,620 Median $10,229 $289 36,000 $6,902 25th Percentile $7,264 $208 29,550 $5,611 Jacobs Percentile** 47% 53% 67% 50% * CH2M Hill’s equity is not publicly traded. ** Percentile rank calculation includes Jacobs. Source: Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. 2018 Proxy Statement | 31 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.