UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  x☒                             Filed by a Party Other than the Registrant  ¨☐

Check the Appropriate Box

NOW Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

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

Payment of Filing Fee (check the appropriate box):

Table of Contents

NOTICEOFNOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING

OF STOCKHOLDERS

Wednesday, May, 25, 201622, 2019

10:00 a.m. (Houston time)

NOW INC.

7402 N. Eldridge Parkway

Houston, Texas 77041

The 20162019 annual meeting of stockholders of NOW Inc. will be held at the Company’s corporate headquarters located at 7402 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas on Wednesday, May 25, 2016,22, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. local time, for the following purposes:

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of the threetwo nominees for director (Proposal 1), “FOR” the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as Independent Auditorsindependent auditors of the Company for 20162019 (Proposal 2), and “FOR” the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers (Proposal 3).

The Board of Directors has set April 7, 20164, 2019 as the record date for the annual meeting of the stockholders (“Annual Meeting”). If you were a stockholder of record at the close of business on April 7, 2016,4, 2019, you are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. A complete list of these stockholders will be available for examination at the Annual Meeting and during ordinary business hours at our offices at 7402 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas 77041 for a period of ten days prior to the Annual Meeting.

You are cordially invited to join us at the Annual Meeting. However, to ensure your representation, we request that you return your signed proxy card at your earliest convenience, whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. You may revoke your proxy at any time if you wish to attend and vote in person.

By Order of the Board of Directors

/s/ Raymond Chang

Houston, Texas

April 15, 2016

April 12, 2019

NOW INC.

7402 N. Eldridge Parkway

Houston, Texas 77041

PROXY STATEMENT

Except as otherwise specifically noted in this Proxy Statement, “NOW”, the “Company,” “we,” “our,” “us,” and similar words in this Proxy Statement refer to NOW Inc.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to Be Held on Wednesday, May 22, 2019.

The Company’s 2019 Proxy Statement and the Annual Report to Stockholders for the year ended 2018 are also available at:

http://www.proxyvote.com

For directions to the Annual Meeting, please contact investor relations at281-823-4700.

PLEASE VOTE — YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

PROPOSAL NO. 1 ON THE PROXY CARD

The Board of Directors of NOW Inc. (the “Board”) is divided into three classes, each class serving a term of three years. Directors whose terms expire this year include: J. Wayne Richards and Robert Workman.

J. Wayne Richards and Robert Workman are nominees for directors for a three-year term expiring at the Annual Meeting in 2022, or when their successors are elected and qualified. We believe each of the nominees will be able to serve if elected. However, if any nominee is unable to serve, the remaining members of the Board have authority to nominate another person, elect a substitute, or reduce the size of the Board. Directors whose terms expire in 2020 and 2021 will continue to serve in accordance with their prior election or appointment. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named.

Vote Required for Approval

NOW’s Bylaws require that each director be elected by the majority of votes cast with respect to such director in uncontested elections (the number of shares voted “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that nominee). In a contested election (a situation in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the standard for election of directors would be a plurality of the shares represented in person or by proxy at any such meeting and entitled to vote on the election of directors. Whether an election is contested or not is determined as of a date that is 14 days in advance of when we file our definitive proxy statement with the SEC. This year’s election was determined to be an uncontested election, and the majority vote standard will apply. Ifapply.If a nominee who is serving as a director is not elected at the annual meeting, Delaware law provides that the director would continue to serve on the Board as a “holdover director.” However, under our Bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines, each director must submit an advance, contingent, irrevocable resignation that the Board may accept if the director fails to be elected through a majority vote. In that situation, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee would make a recommendation to the Board about whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether to take other action. The Board will act on the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it within 90 days from the date the election results are certified. If a nominee who was not already serving as a director fails to receive a majority of votes cast at the annual meeting, Delaware law provides that the nominee does not serve on the Board as a “holdover director.” In 2016,2019, all director nominees are currently serving on the Board.

Brokers are not permitted to vote your shares on the election of directors in the absence of your specific instructions as to how to vote. Please provide your broker with voting instructions so that your vote can be counted.

Information Regarding Nominees for Director for Terms Expiring in 2016:2019:

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION OF THE THREETWO NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR.3DIRECTOR.

Information Regarding Continuing Directors:

COMMITTEES AND MEETINGS OF THE BOARD

Committees

The Board of Directors appoints committees to help carry out its duties. The Board of Directors has the following standing committees: Audit, Compensation, and Nominating/Corporate Governance. Last year, the Board of Directors met 4 times and the committees met a total of 1312 times. Mr. Miller and Mr. Workman dodoes not serve on any committees. The following table sets forth the committees of the Board of Directors and their members as of the date of this proxy statement, as well as the number of meetings each committee held during 2015:2018:

Attendance at Meetings

Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and committees of which that director was a member.member in 2018.    

Audit Committee

Messrs. Eads (Chairman), Cobb, Richards and Ms. Bonno are the current members of the Audit Committee. All members of this committee are “independent” within the meaning of the rules governing audit committees by the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE.

The Audit Committee is appointed by the Board of Directors to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. The Committee’s primary duties and responsibilities are to:

A copy of the Audit Committee Charter is available on the Company’s website,www.distributionnow.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section.

Audit Committee Financial Expert

The Board of Directors has determined that all members of the Audit Committee meet the NYSE standard of having accounting or related financial management expertise and meet the SEC’s criteria of an Audit Committee Financial Expert.

Compensation Committee

Messrs. Alario (Chairman), CrandellCoppinger and FrazierCrandell are the current members of the Compensation Committee. All members of the Compensation Committee are independent as defined by the applicable NYSE listing standards.

The Compensation Committee is appointed by the Board of Directors to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. The Committee’s primary duties and responsibilities are to:

A copy of the Compensation Committee Charter is available on the Company’s website,www.distributionnow.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Messrs. Alario, Coppinger, Crandell and Frazier served on the Compensation Committee during 2015.2018. None of these members is a former or current officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries, is involved in a relationship requiring disclosure as an interlocking executive officer/director, or had any relationship requiring disclosure under Item 404 of RegulationS-K.

Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

Messrs. FrazierCoppinger (Chairman), Alario and Crandell are the current members of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee. All members of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee are independent as defined by the applicable NYSE listing standards.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee is appointed by the Board of Directors to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. The Committee’s primary duties and responsibilities are to:

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Director Nomination Process and Diversity Considerations

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee has the responsibility of identifying candidates for election as directors, reviewing background information relating to candidates for director, and recommending to the Board of Directors nominees for directors to be submitted to stockholders for election. It is the policy of the Committee to consider director candidates recommended by stockholders. Nominees to be evaluated by the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee are selected by the Committee from candidates recommended by multiple sources, including other directors, management, stockholders, and candidates identified by independent search firms (which firms may be paid by the Company for their services), all of whom will be evaluated based on the same criteria. As of April 7, 2016,4, 2019, we had not received any recommendations from stockholders for potential director candidates. All of the current nominees for director are standing members of the Board that are proposed by the entire Board forre-election. Written suggestions for nominees should be sent to the Secretary of the Company at the address listed below.

The Board of Directors believes that nominees should reflect the following characteristics:

The Board considers diversity in identifying nominees for director. The Board seeks to achieve a mix of directors that represents a diversity of background and experience, including with respect to gender and race. The Board considers diversity in a variety of different ways and in a fairly expansive manner. The Board not only considers diversity concepts such as race and gender, but also diversity in the sense of differences in viewpoint, professional experience, education, skill and other qualities and attributes that contribute to board heterogeneity. Also considered as part of the diversity analysis is whether the individual has work experience in the Company’s industry, or in the broader energy or industrial market. The Company believes the Board can benefit from different viewpoints and experiences by having a mix of members of the Board who have experience in its industry and those who may not have such experience.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee reviews Board composition annually to ensure that the Board reflects the knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and diversity required for the Board to fulfill its duties. There are currently no directorship vacancies to be filled on the Board. If and when the need arises for the Company to add a new director to the Board, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee will take every reasonable step to ensure that diverse candidates (including, without limitation, women and minority candidates) are in the pool from which nominees are chosen and strive to obtain diverse candidates by searching in traditional corporate environments, as well as government, academia, andnon-profit organizations.

Director Qualifications

The Company believes that each member of its Board of Directors possess the basic attributes of being a director of the Company, namely having a reputation for integrity, honesty, candor, fairness and discretion. Each director has also become knowledgeable in major aspects of the Company’s business and

operations, which has allowed the Board to provide better oversight functions to the Company. In addition to the experience, qualifications, and skills of each director set forth in their biographies starting on page 7 of this proxy statement, the Company also considered the following factors in determining that the board member should serve on the Board:

Mr. Alario has served as the chief executive officer and chairman of a publicly traded company for 12 years.years, prior to his retirement. Mr. Alario has extensive experience in the oil service business, having worked in that industry for over 30 years. Mr. Alario has gained valuable board experience from his tenure as a director of Kirby Corporation, including from his service on its audit committee, as the chairman of its nominating/corporate governance committee, and as presiding director. Through service in these roles, Mr. Alario has gained extensive experience in assessing the risks associated with various energy industry cycles.

Ms. Bonno provides valuable service and experience to the Audit Committee, due to her past and current experience serving on the financial committee, enterprise risk management committee, and disclosure committee at Transocean Ltd. Ms. Bonno has extensive experience in the oil service industry and a background in accounting with approximately 30 years of being a certified public accountant and experience overseeing the Sox Compliance Global Marketing Function. Ms. Bonno has dealt with all facets of potential risk areas for a global energy company and brings that experience and perspective to the Board.

Mr. Cobb provides valuable service and experience to the Audit Committee, due to his over 40 years of serving in various management positions for Halliburton. Mr. Cobb has developed experience and expertise in warehouse management and distribution, international operations, especially in emerging markets, as well as marketing and business development in a large corporate environment. As a result of this extensive experience, Mr. Cobb is very familiar with the strategic and project planning processes that impact the Company’s business and continued development for growth.

Mr. Coppinger has over 34 years of experience in the petroleum equipment and service, process equipment and flow control businesses, as well as experience in the industrial markets and manufacturing, and has held various positions of increasing responsibility, including managing domestic and international operations. Mr. Coppinger has extensive operational and strategic planning experience from his long career in manufacturing and distribution. Mr. Coppinger also has extensive mergers and acquisitions experience of over 20 years on a global basis. Mr. Coppinger has dealt with all facets of potential risk areas for a global energy service company, and brings that experience to the Company.

Mr. Crandell has over 30 years of experience as a Wall Street analyst focusing on oilfield services and equipment. He has held positions of increasing importance at multiple investment firms, including serving as managing director of global oilfield services equity research. Given Mr. Crandell’s extensive experience as an analyst covering the oilfield services sector, he is able to provide the Company useful and impactful information from a shareholder perspective. As such, Mr. Crandell’s experience as an analyst of the energy industry helps provide a different perspective for the Company.

Mr. Eads provides valuable service and experience to the Audit Committee, due to his MBA degree and 40 years of experience in the energy industry and in his previous roles in senior executive management where he worked to help mitigate risk. Mr. Eads has also been an active member of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) since 2010, achieving the NACD’s Governance Fellow recognition, the highest standard of credentialing for directors and governance professionals. Mr. Eads’ significant international experience and deep expertise in drilling, supply chain management and construction projects, together with his 12 years of experience as an executive officer of two public companies, makes him well qualified to serve as a director of the Company.

Mr. Frazier has over 35 years of experience in investment banking specializing in the energy industry. He has served as president and chief executive officer of a private investment firm focused on the energy sector. Mr. Frazier has gained valuable outside board experience from serving on the boards of Simmons & Company International, Simmons & Company International Limited, and Energy Opportunities Capital Management.

Mr. Miller has been an officer of a publicly traded company since 1996, occupying positions of increasing importance from business group president, to COO, to CEO, to Executive Chairman. Mr. Miller has extensive experience with the Company and the oilfield service industry. Mr. Miller has an MBA degree, and is a graduate of the US Military Academy, West Point. Mr. Miller has also gained valuable outside board experience from his current tenure as a director of Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Transocean Ltd.

Mr. Richards provides valuable service and experience to the Audit Committee, due to his over 30 years of experience in the oilfield products and services industry. Mr. Richards’ experience serving as the chief executive officer of several companies and his experience in growing energy companies organically and through acquisitions, makes him well qualified to serve as a director of the Company. Mr. Richards has dealt with many facets of potential risk areas for an energy service company, as a current and former chief executive officer, and brings that experience and perspective to the Board.

Mr. Workman has been an officer of a publicly traded company since 2001. Mr. Workman’s 23-year28-year career in the distribution business includes positions of increasing importance, from sales manager, to Vice President, to Business Group President. Mr. Workman has extensive experience with the Company and the oil service industry. Mr. Workman’s extensive experience in the Company’s business and the industry, his MBA degree, and his unparalleled knowledge of the Company makes him uniquely and well qualified to serve as a director of the Company.

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

The responsibilities of the Audit Committee include providing oversight to the Company’s financial reporting process through periodic combined and separate meetings with the Company’s independent auditors and management to review accounting, auditing, internal controls, and financial reporting matters. The management of the Company is responsible for the preparation and integrity of the financial reporting information and related systems of internal controls. Composition

The Audit Committee in carrying out its role, relies on the Company’s senior management, including senior financial management,is currently comprised of four members: Rodney Eads, Committee Chairman, Terry Bonno, Galen Cobb and its independent auditors.

Wayne Richards. The Board of Directors has determined that all of the members of the Audit Committee are independent based on the guidelines set forth by the NYSE and SEC rules for the independence of Audit Committee members. The Board of Directors has also determined that all members of the Audit Committee meet the NYSE standard of having accounting or related financial management expertise and meet the SEC’s criteria of an Audit Committee Financial Expert.

Oversight Responsibilities

Under the Audit Committee Charter, which is available for review on the Company’s website atwww.distributionnow.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section, the Audit Committee’s primary purpose is to assist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. In that regard, the Audit Committee’s primary purposes and functions are: (i) monitoring the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, financial reporting processes, systems of internal controls regarding finance, and disclosure controls and procedures; (ii) selecting and appointing the Company’s independent auditors,pre-approving all audit andnon-audit services to be provided, consistent with all applicable laws, to the Company by the Company’s independent auditors, and establishing the fees and other compensation to be paid to the independent auditors; (iii) monitoring the independence and performance of the Company’s independent auditors and internal audit function; (iv) establishing procedures for the receipt, retention, response to and treatment of complaints, including confidential, anonymous submissions by the Company’s employees, regarding accounting, internal controls, disclosure or auditing matters, and providing an avenue of communication among the independent auditors, management, the internal audit function and the Board; and (v) monitoring the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Specifically, with respect to oversight of accounting, internal controls and disclosure matters, as well as oversight of the Company’s compliance with various legal and regulatory requirements, the Audit Committee, as appropriate, but at least on a quarterly basis, reviews all reports generated by the Company’s independently administered employee hotline and other corporate governance hotline systems. The Audit Committee also reviews on a quarterly basis reports from the Company’s enterprise risk management system and cybersecurity monitoring system.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not the Audit Committee’s duty to determine that the Company’s financial statements are complete and accurate and are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) or to conduct audits. Our management is responsible for establishing a system of internal controls, assessing such controls and for preparing our consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Management is also responsible for assuring compliance with laws and regulations and the Company’s corporate policies. Our independent registered public accountants are responsible for auditing our consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) and issuing their reports based on those audits.

The Audit Committee, in carrying out its role, relies on the Company’s senior management, including senior financial management. However, the Audit Committee, at each regularly scheduled quarterly meeting in 2015,2018, met separately in executive session with both the internal audit director and the independent audit partner, without management being present.

Oversight of Independent Auditor

The Audit Committee reviews in advance andpre-approves audit andnon-audit services provided to us by our independent auditors. The Audit Committee is also directly responsible for reviewing with the independent registered public accountants the plans and scope of the audit engagement and providing an open venue of communication between our management, the internal audit function, the independent registered public accountants and the Board.

In connection with the selection and appointment of the independent auditors, each year the Audit Committee reviews and evaluates the qualifications, performance and independence of the independent auditors and lead partner, including taking into account the opinions of management and our internal auditor. In doing so, the Audit Committee considers a number of factors including, but not limited to: quality of services provided; technical expertise and knowledge of the industry; effective communication; objectivity; independence; costs of services considering scope of services, and as compared to independent auditor costs of similar size public companies in same industry sector; and the potential impact of changing independent auditors. Based on this evaluation, the Audit Committee has retained Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) as our independent auditors for 2019. EY has been our independent auditors since 2013, and the current lead partner has been engaged since 2014 and rotated off after completion of the 2018 audit.

The Audit Committee and Board of Directors believe that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to continue retention of EY to serve as our independent auditors. Although the Audit Committee has the sole authority to appoint the independent auditors, the Audit Committee will continue to recommend that the Board of Directors request the stockholders, at the Annual Meeting, to ratify the appointment of the independent auditors.

2018 Audited Financial Statements

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with senior management the audited financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K. Management has confirmed to the Audit Committee that such financial statements have been prepared with integrity and objectivity and in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).GAAP.

The Audit Committee discussed with Ernst & Young LLP,EY, the Company’s independent auditors, the matters required to be discussed under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”)PCAOB standards.

The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from Ernst & YoungEY required by applicable requirements of PCAOB regarding Ernst & Young’sEY’s communication with the Audit Committee concerning independence and has discussed Ernst & Young’sEY’s independence with Ernst & Young.EY.

Based on the foregoing, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s 20152018 Annual Report on Form10-K.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Audit Committee’s charter clarifies that it is not the Audit Committee’s duty to conduct audits or to determine that the Company’s financial statements are complete and accurate and are in accordance with GAAP. Management is responsible for the Company’s financial reporting process, including its system of internal controls, and for the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Management is also responsible for assuring compliance with laws and regulations and the Company’s corporate policies, subject to the Audit Committee’s oversight in the areas covered by the Audit Committee’s charter. The independent auditors are responsible for expressing opinions on those financial statements and on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Members of the Audit Committee

Rodney Eads, Committee Chairman

Terry Bonno

Galen Cobb

Wayne Richards

RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

PROPOSAL NO. 2 ON THE PROXY CARD

Information Regarding our Independent Auditors

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has reappointed Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors for 2016.2019. Stockholders are being asked to vote upon the ratification of the appointment. Representatives of Ernst & Young will attend the Annual Meeting, where they will be available to respond to appropriate questions and have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire.

Vote Required for Approval

The proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors will require approval of a majority of the shares of our common stock entitled to vote and present in person or by proxy. In accordance with NYSE rules, a proposal to ratify independent auditors is considered to be a “discretionary” item. This means that brokerage firms may vote in their discretion on this matter on behalf of beneficial owners who have not furnished voting instructions within the time period specified in the voting instructions submitted by such brokerage firms. Abstentions, which will be counted as votes present for the purpose of determining a quorum, will have the effect of a vote against the proposal. Your shares will be voted as you specify on your proxy. If your properly executed proxy does not specify how you want your shares voted, we will vote them for the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors.

Audit Fees

The Audit Committeepre-approves all services provided by the Company’s independent auditors to the Company and its subsidiaries. Consideration and approval of such services generally occurs in the regularly scheduled quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has delegated the Chairman of the Audit Committee topre-approve allowednon-audit services, subject to review by the full committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of all services other than those rendered for the audit of the Company’s financial statements is compatible with maintaining Ernst & Young’s independence and has concluded that their independence is not compromised.

The following table sets forth Ernst & Young LLP’s fees for services rendered during 20142017 and 2015.2018. All services provided by Ernst & Young LLP werepre-approved by the Audit Committee.

Your Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP.

APPROVAL OF COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS – PROPOSAL NO. 3 ON THE PROXY CARD

A proposal will be presented at the meeting asking stockholders to approve on an advisory basis the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as described in this proxy statement.

Why You Should Approve our Executive Compensation Program

The Company’s compensation philosophy is designed to attract and retain executive talent and emphasize pay for performance, including the creation of stockholder value. The Company encourages its stockholders to read the Executive Compensation section of this proxy statement, including the compensation tables, as well as the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) section of this proxy statement, for a more detailed discussion of our compensation programs and policies. The Company believes its compensation programs and policies are appropriate and effective in implementing its compensation philosophy and in achieving its goals and that they are aligned with stockholder interests and worthy of stockholder support.

We believe that stockholders should consider the following in determining whether to approve this proposal:

Compensation Program is Closely Linked to Stockholder Value

An important and significant portion of each executive’s compensation at the Company is in the form of long-term incentive awards, which are directly linked to the Company’s performance and the creation of stockholder value. The Company’s long-term incentive awards, starting with its first annual grant in 2015, consists of: stock options, time-based restricted stock and performance-based share awards. We believe this mix appropriately motivates long-term performance and rewards executives for absolute gains in share price, performance against designated metrics and relative financial performance against a designated peer group.

StrongPay-for-Performance Orientation

The Company’s annual and long-term incentive programs established in 2015, the Company’s first full year in existence, pay its named executive officers only if certain performance metrics (absolute and/or relative) are achieved. Thus, two of the three components of an executives’ pay at the Company are based on performance.

Compensation Program Has Appropriate Long-term Orientation

Minimum three-year vesting for equity awards: The Company encourages a long-term orientation by its executives through the use of three-year vesting requirements for annual grants of stock options, restricted stock and performance-based awards.

Summary of Good Governance and Risk Mitigating Factors

In 2015, more than 97%Shareholder Outreach - Say on Pay Feedback

The Company’s 2018 Say on Pay vote at the May 2018 annual meeting received 59% support from our shareholders, down from approximately 94% or higher in each of theour Say on Pay votes cast on our say-on-pay proposalin 2015-2017. These results were in favor ofparticularly surprising to us, as we made no changes to our executive compensation program in 2017. Our Board viewed the decrease in the “yes” vote as an indication that expanded engagement was needed to ensure we have a clear understanding of, and policies.opportunity to respond to, our shareholders’ views on our compensation program.

Following the 2018 annual meeting, at the Board’s discretion, we reached out to our top 15 shareholders representing more than 78% of our outstanding shares, to request meetings to discuss any issues or concerns they may have with our executive compensation program. Shareholders representing nearly 30% of our outstanding shares agreed to engage with us. We also consulted the publicly-available policies of our major shareholders to better understand their views on executive compensation.

After receiving feedback from our shareholders on our executive compensation program during this engagement effort and evaluating such feedback, the Compensation Committee determined to enhance disclosure under its short-term incentive program and make several changes and enhancements to its long-term incentive plan compensation program to address specific changes discussed during our shareholder outreach efforts, as follows:

(1) increasing the weighting of the performance-based share awards from 33 1/3% to 50% of the long-term incentive program,

(2) increasing the weighting of the relative total shareholder return (TSR) metric within the performance-based share awards from 33 1/3% to 50%,

(3) reducing the duplication of certain performance metrics between the short-term and long-term incentive programs by eliminating the working capital metric from the long-term incentive program and replacing it with a return on capital employed metric, and

(4) adding four (4) new companies to the peer group to enhance and improve the comparisons between the Company and its peer group.

The Compensation Committee refined the executive compensation program consistent with its ongoing efforts to ensure that our programs are optimally designed to reflect shareholder values, enhance the link between executive pay and company performance, respond to changing market practices and retain effective leaders who have a significant understanding of our business, particularly during a cyclical economic environment.

Shareholder Resolution

The Company’s compensation program for its named executive officers has been thoughtfully designed to support the Company’s long-term business strategies and drive creation of stockholder value. The program does not encourage excessive risk-taking by management. It is aligned with the competitive market for talent, and highly sensitive to Company performance. The Company believes its program will deliver reasonable pay that is strongly linked to Company performance over time.

The following resolution will be submitted for a stockholder vote at the 20162019 annual meeting:

“RESOLVED, that the stockholders of the Company approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers listed in the 20152018 Summary Compensation Table included in the proxy statement for this meeting, as such compensation is disclosed pursuant to Item 402 ofRegulation S-K in this proxy statement under the section entitled “Executive Compensation”, including the compensation tables and other narrative executive compensation disclosures set forth under that section, as well as the section in the proxy statement entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

This advisory vote on the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers gives stockholders another mechanism to convey their views about the Company’s compensation programs and policies. Although your vote on executive compensation is not binding on the Company, the Board values the views of stockholders. The Board and Compensation Committee will review the results of the vote and take them into consideration in addressing future compensation policies and decisions.

Your Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

NOW’s Board of Directors is committed to promoting transparency in reporting information about the Company, complying with the spirit as well as the literal requirements of applicable laws, rules and regulations, and corporate behavior that conforms to corporate governance standards that substantially exceed the consensus view of minimum acceptable corporate governance standards. The Board of Directors adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines which established provisions for the Board’s composition and function, Board committees and committee membership, evaluation of director independence, the roles of the independent Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, and the Lead Director, the evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer, regular meetings ofnon-employee directors, board conduct and review, selection and orientation of directors, director compensation, access to management and independent advisors, and annual review of the Corporate Governance Guidelines. A copy of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is available on the Company’s website,www.distributionnow.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section. The Company will furnish print copies of the Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as its Committee charters, to interested stockholders without charge, upon request. Written requests for such copies should be addressed to: Raymond Chang, Secretary, NOW Inc., 7402 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas 77041.

Highlights

We maintain a strong and proactive approach to corporate governance, as follows:

Director Independence

The Corporate Governance Guidelines address, among other things, standards for evaluating the independence of the Company’s directors. The Board undertakes an annual review of director independence and considers transactions and relationships during the prior year between each director or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company and its affiliates, including those reported under “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” in this Proxy Statement. In February 2016,2019, as a result of this annual review, the Board affirmatively determined that a majority of the members of the Board of Directors are independent of the Company and its management under the standards set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The following directors were affirmed as independent: Richard Alario, Terry Bonno, Galen Cobb, Paul Coppinger, James Crandell, Rodney Eads, Michael Frazier, and J. Wayne Richards.

Board Leadership – Independent Chairman of the Board

Currently, the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer are not combined at the Company. The Company believes that effective corporate governance, including the independent oversightcurrent leadership structure delineates the separate roles of management, does not require thatmanagers and directors. Our Chief Executive Officer sets the strategic direction for the Company, working with the Board, and providesday-to-day leadership. Our independent Chairman of the Board be anleads the Board in the performance of its duties and serves as the principal liaison between the independent director. The Company believes that its stockholders are best served by a Board that has the flexibility to establish a leadership structure that fits the needs of the Company at a particular point in time.

The Board believes that our current Executive Chairman is best situated to serve as Chairman because he is the director most familiar with our business and most capable of effectively identifying strategic priorities and leading the discussion and execution of our strategy. The Board also believes that the role of Executive Chairman facilitates information flow between managementdirectors and the Board.Chief Executive Officer.

To assist with providing independent oversight of management and the Company’s strategy, thenon-employee members of the Board of Directors have appointed J. Wayne Richards, an independent director, as Lead Director. Thethe independent Chairman of the Board and Lead Director (the “Independent Chair”). The Independent Chair is responsible for: (1) chairing all meetings of the Board at which the Chair is present, (2) working with the Chief Executive Officer on the scheduling of Board meetings and the preparation of agendas and materials for Board meetings, (3) define the quality, quantity and timeliness of the flow of information between senior management and the Board, (4) approve, in consultation with the other directors, the retention of consultants who report directly to the Board, (5) developing the agenda for, and presiding over the executive sessions of, the Board’snon-management directors, (2)(6) facilitating communications among the Chairman of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer and other members of the Board, (3)(7) coordinating, with the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, the assessment of the committee structure, organization, and charters, and evaluating the need for any changes, (4)(8) acting as principal liaison between thenon-management directors and the Chief Executive Officer on matters dealt with in executive session, and (5)(9) assuming such further tasks as the independent directors may determine.

The Board also holds executive sessions on a quarterly basis at which onlynon-employee directors are present. In addition, the committees of the Board provide independent oversight of management. Each of the committees of the Board is composed entirely of independent directors.

The Board has concluded that this structure is in the best interest of stockholders because it provides an appropriate balance between our independent Chairman’s ability to lead the Board and the Company and the ability of our independent directors, under the leadership of our Lead Director, to provide independent objective oversight of our management.management, and the Chief Executive Officer’s ability to provide strategic direction for the Company and lead the Company on aday-to-day basis.

Board Role in Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors and its committees help conduct certain risk oversight functions for the Company. The Board is periodically advised on the status of various factors that could impact the business and operating results of the Company, including oil and gas prices. The full Board is also responsible for reviewing the Company’s strategy, business plan, and capital expenditure budget at least annually. Through these various functions, the Board is able to monitor these risks and assist the Company in determining whether certain mitigating actions, if any, need to be taken.

The Audit Committee serves an important role in providing risk oversight, as further detailed in its charter. One of the Audit Committee’s primary duties and responsibilities is to monitor the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, financial reporting processes, systems of internal controls regarding finance, and disclosure controls and procedures. The Audit Committee is also responsible for establishing procedures for the receipt, retention, response to and treatment of complaints, including confidential, anonymous submissions by the Company’s employees, regarding accounting, internal controls, disclosure or auditing matters, and providing an avenue of communication among the independent auditors, management, and the internal audit function and the Board. In addition, the Audit Committee monitors the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.requirements, as well as the Company’s cybersecurity risks (which the Audit Committee considers at each quarterly meeting and at other times on an as needed basis). The Company considers the Audit Committee an important part of the risk management process, and senior management works closely with the Audit Committee on these matters in managing material risks to the Company.

The other committees of the Board also assist in the risk oversight function. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for ensuring that the Board and its committees are appropriately constituted so that the Board and its directors may effectively meet their fiduciary obligations to stockholders and the Company. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee is also responsible for

monitoring and evaluating on an annual basis the effectiveness of the Board and management of the Company, including their effectiveness in implementing the policies and principles of the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Compensation Committee is responsible for compensation of the Company’s directors and executive officers. These various responsibilities of these committees allow them to work with the Company to make sure these areas do not pose undue risks to the Company.

Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs

Consistent with SEC disclosure requirements, the Company, its Compensation Committee and the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant assess the Company’s compensation programs on an annual basis and have determined that the Company’s compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. On an annual basis, Company management, the Compensation Committee and the Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant will assess the Company’s executive and broad-based compensation programs to determine if the programs’ provisions and operations create undesired or unintentional risk of a material nature.

The Company’s variable forms of compensation, namely the annual cash incentive bonus program and long-term equity incentives, have structural limitations and other mitigating controls which are designed to prevent the Company from being exposed to unexpected or unbudgeted materially adverse events. For example, bonus payments to an executive under the annual cash incentive bonus program are capped at a certain percentage of the executive’s base salary, and the number of shares of restricted stock and stock options granted under the Company’s long-term equity incentive plan are fixed amounts of shares.

The Company, the Compensation Committee, and the Compensation Committee’s consultant believe that the Company’s compensation policies and practices do not create inappropriate or unintended significant risk to the Company as a whole. The Company and the Compensation Committee also believe that the Company’s incentive compensation arrangements provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage significant risks and are supported by the oversight and administration of the Compensation Committee with regard to executive compensation programs.

Policies on Business Ethics and Conduct

The Company has a long-standing Business Ethics Policy. The Board adopted the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics For Members of the Board of Directors and Executive Officers and the Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers. These codes are designed to focus the Board and management on areas of ethical risk, provide guidance to personnel to help them recognize and deal with ethical issues, provide mechanisms to report unethical conduct and help to foster a culture of honesty and accountability. As set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board may not waive the application of the Company’s policies on business ethics and conduct for any Director or Executive Officer. Copies of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics For Members of the Board of Directors and Executive Officers and the Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, as well as the code of ethics applicable to employees of the Company, are available on the Company’s website,www.distributionnow.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section. The Company will furnish print copies of these Codes to interested stockholders without charge, upon request. Written requests for such copies should be addressed to: Raymond Chang, Secretary, NOW Inc., 7402 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas 77041.

Communications with Directors

The Board has provided a process for interested parties to communicate with ournon-employee directors. Parties wishing to communicate confidentially with ournon-employee directors may do so by calling1-866-880-2773. This procedure is described on the Company’s website,www.distributionnow.com, in the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance section. Calls to this number will be answered by an independent, automated system 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. A transcript of the call will be delivered to a member of the Audit Committee. Parties wishing to send written communications to the Board, other than sales-related communications, should send a letter addressed to the member or members of the Board to whom the communication is directed, care of the Secretary, NOW Inc., 7402 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas, 77041. All such communications will be forwarded to the Board member or members specified.

Director Attendance at Annual Meetings

The Company does not have a formal policy with respect to director attendance at annual stockholder meetings. In 2015,2018, all members of the Board were in attendance at the annual meeting.

NYSE Corporate Governance Matters

As a listed company with the NYSE, our Chief Executive Officer, as required under Section 303A.12(a) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, must certify to the NYSE each year whether or not he is aware of any violation by the Company of NYSE Corporate Governance listing standards as of the date of the certification. On June 2, 2015,12, 2018, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer submitted such a certification to the NYSE which stated that he was not aware of any violation by the Company of the NYSE Corporate Governance listing standards.

On February 23, 2016,14, 2019, the Company filed its 20152018 Annual Report on Form10-K with the SEC, which included as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer certifications required under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following persons are our current executive officers. The executive officers of the Company serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors and are subject to annual appointment by the Board of Directors. None of the executive officers, directors, or nominees for director has any family relationships with each other.

Name David Cherechinsky		Age		Position		Biography
Daniel Molinaro		6955		Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer		Mr. Cherechinsky has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since February 2018. Mr. Cherechinsky previously served as the Company’s Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer from February 2014 until February 2018. Mr. Cherechinsky served as Vice President—Finance for National Oilwell Varco’s distribution business group from 2003, and as Vice President—Finance for National Oilwell Varco’s Distribution & Transmission business segment from 2011, until the Company’sspin-off in May 2014. He previously served National Oilwell Varco starting in 1989 in various corporate roles, including internal auditor, credit management and business analyst, and is a CPA.
Daniel Molinaro		72		Executive Vice President		Mr. Molinaro has served as Executive Vice President since February 2018. Mr. Molinaro previously served as the Company’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer sincefrom February 2014.2014 until February 2018. Mr. Molinaro served as National Oilwell Varco’s Vice President from 2003, and served as National Oilwell Varco’s Treasurer from 1987, until the Company’sspin-off in May 2014. Prior to that, he was Controller of the Oilwell Division of U.S. Steel Corporation (“USX”). He started with USX in 1968, and has held various managerial positions in auditing, accounting and finance.

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

Based on information filed with the SEC as of the most recent practicable date, this table shows the number and percentage of shares beneficially owned by owners of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of the common stock of the Company at December 31, 2015.2018. The number and percentage of shares of common stock beneficially owned is based on 109,371,473109,792,135 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2015.2018.

(2)	Shares owned at December 31, 2015,2018, as reflected in Amendment 1No. 5 to Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 31, 2019, by BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”). Within the BlackRock group are the following subsidiaries: BlackRock (Netherlands) B.V., BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Asset

Security Ownership of Management

This table shows the number and percentage of shares of the Company’s common stock beneficially owned as of April 7, 20164, 2019 by each of our current directors and executive officers and by all current directors and executive officers as a group. The number and percentage of shares of common stock beneficially owned is based on 109,490,983110,057,069 shares outstanding as of April 7, 2016.4, 2019. Beneficial ownership includes any shares as to which the director or executive officer has the right to acquire within 60 days of April 7, 20164, 2019 through the exercise of any stock option, warrant or other right. Each stockholder has sole voting and investment power, or shares these powers with hishis/her spouse, with respect to the shares beneficially owned.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

General Overview

NOW Inc.’s executive compensation program is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee establishes specific compensation levels for the Company’s executive officers and administers the Company’s long-term incentive award plans. The Compensation Committee’s objective regarding executive compensation is to design and implement a compensation program that will attract and retain the best available individuals to serve on the Company’s executive team and properly incentivize those executives to achieve the Company’s short-term and long-term financial and operational goals. To this end, the Compensation Committee strives to provide compensation packages for key executives that generally offer compensation opportunities in the median range of the companies in its designated peer group as described below. Data sources reviewed by the Compensation Committee and its independent compensation consultants include industry survey groups, national survey databases, proxy disclosures and general trend data, which are updated annually. The Compensation Committee reviews all elements of executive compensation both separately and in the aggregate.

Major components of the executive compensation program for 20152018 are base salary, participation in the Company’s annual cash incentive (bonus) plan and the grant ofnon-qualified stock options, restricted stock and performance-based restricted stock awards (long-term incentives).

Shareholder Outreach - Say on Pay Feedback

The Company’s 2018 Say on Pay vote at the May 2018 annual meeting received 59% support from our shareholders, down from approximately 94% or higher in each of our Say on Pay votes in 2015-2017. These results were particularly surprising to us, as we made no changes to our executive compensation program in 2017. Our Board viewed the decrease in the “yes” vote as an indication that expanded engagement was needed to ensure we have a clear understanding of, and opportunity to respond to, our shareholders’ views on our compensation program.

Following the 2018 annual meeting, at the Board’s discretion, we reached out by email and phone calls to our top 15 shareholders representing more than 78% of our outstanding shares, to request meetings to discuss any issues or concerns they may have with our executive compensation program. Shareholders representing nearly 30% of our outstanding shares agreed to engage with us. For those that did not respond or agree to engage with us, we reached out to them again to request meetings. We also consulted the publicly-available policies of our major shareholders to better understand their views on executive compensation.

In September and October 2018, the Board’s Compensation Committee Chair, Mr. Alario, along with Mr. Chang, the Company’s General Counsel, met by phone with shareholders representing nearly 30% of our outstanding shares. We provided an open forum to each shareholder to discuss and comment on any aspects of the Company’s executive compensation program. These shareholders did not have any issues with the specific metrics chosen by the Company to measure its executives’ performance or the rigor of such goals set by the Company. Several shareholders did suggest that the Company enhance its disclosure on its short-term incentive program. Overall, we received positive and constructive feedback from the shareholders who engaged with us regarding the Company’s executive compensation program. The Company after this engagement with its shareholders, agreed to keep in contact with them, as well as the other shareholders who chose not to engage with the Company, in order to continue to receive whatever feedback they may have on the Company’s executive compensation program.

In addition, management and our investor relations team held many meetings and discussions with shareholders between the 2018 annual meeting and the end of 2018. This effort supplemented the ongoing communications between our management and shareholders, as well as the outreach to shareholders prior to and in connection with our 2018 annual meeting, through various engagement channels including direct meetings, analyst conferences and road shows. These meetings provided the Compensation Committee and the Board with valuable insights into our shareholders’ perspectives on our compensation program and potential improvements to the program, as described below.

In addition, the Compensation Committee undertook a fresh review of our executive compensation program, with particular emphasis on our short-term and long-term incentive plans. Over the course of September 2018 to February 2019, with input from its independent compensation consultant and management, the Compensation Committee conducted a comprehensive review of our programs, including performance metrics and targets, as well as the peer group used in benchmarking executive compensation.

After receiving feedback from our shareholders on our executive compensation program during this engagement effort and evaluating such feedback, the Compensation Committee determined to enhance disclosure under its short-term incentive program and make several changes and enhancements to its long-term incentive plan compensation program to address specific changes discussed during our shareholder outreach efforts, as follows: (1) increasing the weighting of the performance-based share awards from 33 1/3% to 50% of the long-term incentive program, (2) increasing the weighting of the relative total shareholder return (TSR) metric within the performance-based share awards from 33 1/3% to 50%, (3) reducing the duplication of certain performance metrics between the short-term and long-term incentive programs by eliminating the working capital metric from the long-term incentive program and replacing it with a return on capital employed metric, and (4) adding four (4) new companies to the peer group to enhance and improve the comparisons between the Company and its peer group.

The Compensation Committee refined the executive compensation program consistent with its ongoing efforts to ensure that our programs are optimally designed to reflect shareholder values, enhance the link between executive pay and company performance, respond to changing market practices and retain effective leaders who have a significant understanding of our business, particularly during a cyclical economic environment.

20152018 Shareholder Feedback – Our Response Process

2019 Key Compensation Actions and Decisions

The key features of the redesign of our long-term incentive compensation program for 2019 awards and enhanced disclosure of our short-term inventive compensation program are set forth below and are described in further detail in the Components of Compensation sections and Recent Developments below.

		What We Heard From Investors				Changes We Made
Disclose performance metric targets for the annual short-term incentive plan				Beginning with this year’s proxy, we have provided the specific performance metric targets for our annual short-term incentive plan, along with detail as to how these metrics were determined and set, thereby enhancing our disclosure on our annual short-term incentive plan. For more information, see our discussion under “Components of Compensation—Annual Incentive Award”.
Long-term incentive award program needs to have more weighting on performance-based vehicles				The performance-based share awards now comprise 50% of the long-term incentive award program for the Company’s executives (up from 33 1/3%). For more information, see our discussion under “Components of Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Compensation”.
Greater reliance on performance-based measures relative to a peer group, such as total shareholder return				In the performance-based share awards, total shareholder return relative to the peer group is now 50% of the performance-based share awards (up from 33 1/3%). For more information, see our discussion under “Components of Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Compensation”.
Avoid duplication between metrics used for the short-term incentive program and the long-term incentive program				EBITDA (1) and working capital were the two measures used in both the short-term incentive program and the long-term incentive program. In the long-term incentive program, we have removed working capital as a measure and replaced it with return on capital employed (ROCE). The EBITDA metric was generally considered by our shareholders to be the most important financial metric for the Company’s performance to be measured by, which is

In addition to engaging with our shareholders, we also engaged by phone with members from ISS and Glass Lewis to gain clarity on matters they highlighted in their reports to investors. During these engagements, we received clarification on how they evaluated our 2018 proxy disclosure and how they intend to evaluate our 2019 proxy disclosure.

We believe that we have updated our compensation practices in a manner appropriate for a company of our size and stage of growth. We intend to continue engaging with our shareholders and reviewing our compensation and governance practices in the future.

DNOW Strategy to Unlock Value

2018 Performance Overview

In 2015,2018, the Company had the following highlights:

Participants

The following is a list of our named executive officers by name and position, as of December 31, 2015:2018:

Good Pay Practices

Our compensation program and policies include key features that are designed to align the interests of our executives and stockholders and to mitigate compensation-related risks. The table below highlights our practices:

In 2015, more than 97% of the votes cast on our say-on-pay proposal were in favor of our executive compensation program and policies.

Compensation Philosophy

The Company believes it is important for each executive to have a fixed amount of cash compensation, in the form of base salary, that is not dependent on the performance or results of the Company. The Company recognizes that a certain amount of financial certainty must be provided to its executives as part of their compensation.

While the Company believes a competitive base salary is needed to attract and retain talented executives, the Company’s compensation program also places a strong emphasis on performance driven annual and long-term incentives to align the executive’s interests with stockholder value. The annual and long-term incentives are calculated and paid based primarily on financial measures of profitability and stockholder value creation. Executives of the Company are incentivized to increase the Company’s profitability and stockholder return and to optimize the Company’s financial performance in order to earn a major portion of their compensation package.

The Company seeks to structure a balance between achieving strong short-term annual results and ensuring the Company’s long-term success and viability. The Company wants each of its executives to balance his or her focus between the Company’sday-to-day operational performance and the Company’s long-term goals and strategies. To reinforce the importance of balancing these perspectives, the Company’s executives are provided both short and long-term incentives.

Base salary is designed to compensate the executive for his or her performance of normal, everyday job functions. The Company’s annual cash incentive (bonus) plan and long-term incentives are designed to reward the executive for executing business plans that will benefit the Company in the short and long-term. The Company believes that the mix of short and long-term incentives allows the Company to deliver results aligned with the interests of stockholders. Stock options create a focus on share price appreciation, while the annual cash incentive (bonus) and performance-based restricted stock awards emphasize financial performance, both absolute and relative.

Components of these forms of compensation and the cyclical nature of the industry in which we operate, the Company understands that its annual cash incentives and long-term compensation will result in varying compensation for its executives each year. Because of this, the Company has tried to design its annual cash incentives and long-term compensation program in such a way to provide meaningful financial rewards to its executives during times when the Company’s financial and operational performance is strong, while motivating executives to stay with the Company during more challenging economic times when the Company’s performance may not be as strong.NOW’s Compensation Program

There arewere no compensation policy differences among the individual executives in 2018, except that the more senior officers, such as the chief executive officer, receive higher compensation consistent with their increased responsibilities. These differences are reviewed and considered in connection with the compensation analysis performed by the Compensation Committee’s independent consultant.

Competitive Positioning

Because of these goals and objectives for executive compensation, the Company believes each element of compensation should be properly designed, as well as competitive with the marketplace, to incentivize its executives in the manner stated above. The Company believes it is also important that executive compensation be properly designed to attract and retain talented executives.

As part of its process to establish compensation levels for the Company’s named executive officers, the Compensation Committee compares each of the major elements of compensation (base salary, annual bonus and long-term incentives) for each of its named executive officers against the median compensation

provided to comparable executive officers at companies in a designated peer group. When analyzing peer group data, the Compensation Committee does not establish a specific numeric range around the median data points, which it considers reasonable or acceptable. Rather, in setting compensation for any particular named executive officer, the Compensation Committee considers any variance from the median, taking into account other factors as discussed below, and determines whether such variance is appropriate. If the Compensation Committee determines that any variance is unwarranted, the Compensation Committee will make appropriate adjustments to the compensation levels.

The Compensation Committee has been taking steps to position our senior executives’ total target compensation closer to our peer group median.

In November 2015,September 2018, the Compensation Committee requested that its independent compensation consultant, Longnecker & Associates (“L&A”), review its designated peer group against which the Company’s named executive officers compensation is compared, and provide recommendations on the ongoing peer group framework. The designated peer group, developed in 2014, was comprised of companies of similar size, companies in the equipment and services industry with emphasis on serving the energy industry, and companies in the peer group of its closest competitors, as well as companies for

which the Company competes for management talent. Two companies in the peer group, Rosetta Resources and Dresser-Rand, were acquired by other companies since the establishment of the designated peer group. As a result, those two companies were removed from the designated peer group, reducing the designated peer group to fourteen companies.

L&A reviewed each designated peer company’s revenue, assets, market capitalization and enterprise value in relation to the Company. L&A indicated that an ideal size for the designated peer group of the Company would be between 12 to 18 companies. L&A also indicated that in order for the Company to maintain its stated philosophy related to peer selection criteria (peer companies andshould generally fall within reasonable size parameters of 0.5 to 2.0 times the Company’s revenues, assets, EBITDA and/or market capitalization), L&A recommended that four companies be added to the current designated peer group, size of 14 companies would still be reasonablein order to create a peer group more similar in such criteria to the Company: Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., Kennametal, Inc., RPC, Inc. and proper. Kaman Corp. Such recommendation was approved by the Company and the Compensation Committee.

After reviewing the peer group and L&A’s analysis and recommendations, the Compensation Committee approved the following peer group of 1418 companies to form the Company’s designated peer group:

The Compensation Committee recognized that the designated peer group was within reasonable size parameters (generally 0.5 times to 2 times the Company’s revenues, assets, EBITDA and/or market capitalization) and were generally similar to the Company in terms of industry and/or operations.

The Compensation Committee then engaged L&A in November 2015September 2018 to conduct its annual competitive review of executive compensation for the Company’s top five executives relative to its peer companies, as well as to analyze internal pay equity based on the peer group approved by the Compensation Committee. L&A analyzed and compared each position’s responsibilities and job title to develop competitive market data. Its executive compensation review covered the following elements of compensation: base salaries, annual bonuses, and equity compensation. L&A generated data on the components of the Company’s compensation program compared to the market 25^th percentile, market 50^th percentile, and market 75^th percentile of the designated peer group.

Based on the compiled data and the comparisons prepared by L&A, the Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, determined that the total direct compensation for the Company’s named executive officers relative to the designated peer group was generally positioned belowbetween the 25^th percentile and 50^th percentile range of the peer group.

Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer

The Compensation Committee determines the compensation of the chief executive officer based on competitive peer group data, leadership, meeting operational goals, executing the Company’s business plan, and achieving certain financial results. Components of Mr. Workman’s compensation for 2018 are consistent with those for executive officers as described above and included base salary, participation in the annual incentive plan and the grant of stock options, restricted stock and performance awards.

In considering Mr. Workman’s base salary level, the Compensation Committee, generally on an annual basis, reviews the compensation level of chief executive officers of each of the companies in the designated peer group and considers Mr. Workman’s individual performance and success in achieving the Company’s strategic objectives.

The Compensation Committee establishes goals and objectives for Mr. Workman for each fiscal year. For 2018, Mr. Workman’s performance was measured in four key areas of the Company that align with DNOW’s strategic goals: (1) financial performance, (2) formulation and implementation of Company strategy, (3) operational performance, and (4) management and employee development. The specific goals within these four areas were set based on a determination of prioritizing Mr. Workman’s efforts on those specific areas and responsibilities that would have the greatest impact on the Company, and included the following:

Components of Compensation

The following describes the elements of the Company’s compensation program for 2015,2018, why they were selected, and how the amounts of each element were determined.

Base Salary

Base salaries provide executives with a fixed level of monthly cash income. While the Compensation Committee is aware of competitive levels, actual salary levels are based on factors including tenure, individual performance, and level and scope of responsibility. The Company does not give specific weights to these factors. The Compensation Committee determines median base salary levels by having L&A conduct a comprehensive review of information provided in proxy statements filed by our peer companies. Generally, each executive is reviewed by the Compensation Committee individually on an annual basis. Salary adjustments are based on the individual’s experience and background, the individual’s performance during the prior year, the general movement of salaries in the marketplace, our financial position and, for each executive other than the chief executive officer, the recommendations of our executive chairman and chief executive officer. The Compensation Committee does not establish

specific individual goals for the Company’s named executive officers, other than the chief executive officer (see “Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer” below for a discussion of the chief executive officer’s goals). The Compensation Committee’s analysis of the individual performance of any particular named executive officer is subjective in nature and takes into account the recommendations of the executive chairman and the chief executive officer (other than with respect to him). As a result of these factors, an executive’s base salary may be above or below the targeted median at any point in time.

In November 2014, the Compensation Committee reviewed with L&A the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that overall, the Company’s executives are generally aligned below the market 25^th percentile. Based on L&A’s analysis, the CEO was further behind the market than the other executives. The Compensation Committee also considered that there had been no adjustments to the Company’s named executive officers’ base salary since the Company’sspin-off from National Oilwell Varco in May 2014.

L&A recommended to the Compensation Committee that it adopt a philosophy of targeting base salaries near the market 50^th percentile of the Company’s designated peer group. Given that many of the executives were not near the market 50^th percentile, and to allow the executives to mature into their current roles, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. In November 2014, the Compensation Committee agreed to the staged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median (“Original Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

In November 2015, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. The results of such review were consistent with the analysis conducted in 2014, and were to be addressed by the Compensation Committee’s approval and implementation of the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan.

However, given the difficult and severe market conditions during 2015, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all below median levels of their designated peers (and in the case of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, reviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Three Year Base Pay Plan to still be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the Company’s request and suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the Company’s executive officers per the Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2016.

In November 2016, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given the continued difficult and severe market conditions during 2016, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee continue to suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all below median levels of their designated peers (and in the case of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, reviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan to still be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the Company’s request and continue to suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the Company’s executive officers per the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2017.

BasedOn February 21, 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to implement the previously approved base salary increase for Mr. David Cherechinsky, the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, to $300,000, noting that such base salary increase still put Mr. Cherechinsky’s base salary below the median market base salary level of his peers.

In November 2017, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and also given that the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years (and the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014), the Compensation Committee requested that L&A review and update the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, in an effort to come up with a long-term plan to align executive base salary pay to market median levels.

After such review and analysis, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. The Compensation Committee agreed to the staged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median, starting in 2018 (“Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

Thus, effective January 1, 2018, the Compensation Committee approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: Robert Workman – from $600,000 to $700,000; Daniel Molinaro – from $425,000 to $450,000; Raymond Chang – from $368,000 to $400,000; and David Cherechinsky – from $300,000 to $305,000. These base salary adjustments were the result of the Compensation Committee approving the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan, as a result of their following findings:

(1) the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile in base salary pay and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile,

(2) market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and

(3) the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years.

The Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was designed to address the above concerns, taking into further consideration that the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014, and the implementation of this new plan was designed to bring executive compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a three year period.

On February 20, 2018, the Compensation Committee, after consulting with L&A, approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: David Cherechinsky – from $305,000 to $405,000 and Mark Johnson – from $168,000 to $243,000. Increases in base salary for these factors,executive officers were approved, effective February 16, 2018, as a result of such executive’s promotions to new positions at the Company and each of their increased responsibilities (Mr. Cherechinsky becoming the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Mr. Johnson becoming the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, effective February 16, 2018). While each of their new base salaries are still below the median level of

comparable salaries offered by the Company’s industry peers, it moves their prior salaries to a level closer to the median level and allows the Company to bring their compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a period of time.

In November 2018, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. L&A reviewed executive base salaries relative to the peer group, and determined that the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was still supported by market data. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was at the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions continued to improve in 2018 and the Company’s performance had improved as well in 2018 over 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to continue implementation of base salary adjustments for the Company’s executives consistent with the Update Three Year Base Pay Plan in 2019.

The Company’s named executive officers other than its Executive Chairman (who continues to voluntarily receive $1 in annual base salary), had the following base salaries in 2015 (which have continued into 2016):at the end of 2018:

The Executive Chairman has voluntarily agreed to effectively forego cash compensation ($1 in annual base salary and no annual incentive compensation) and could only be compensated in long-term incentives.

Annual Incentive Award

The objectives of the Company’s annual cash incentive plan are to incent performance to achieve the Company’s corporate growth and profitability goals, encourage smart investments and prudent employment of capital, incent efficient and optimal cash flow management, and provide competitive compensation packages to attract and retain management talent.

The Company’s annual incentive plan is designed to reward its executives in line with the financial performance of the Company on an annual basis. When the Company is achieving strong financial results, its executives will be rewarded well through its annual incentive plan. The Company believes this structure helps keep the executives properly motivated to continue helping the Company achieve these strong results.

The Company’s annual incentive plan has two independent,pre-determined and equally weighted metrics to measure the Company’s success and payouts under such plan: (1) working capital as a percentage of revenue (“Working Capital”) and (2) EBITDA percentage (“EBITDA”). Working capital is defined as current assets (excluding cash) less current liabilities (excluding short-term borrowings). Substantially all corporate exempt employees of the Company, including executive officers, are eligible to participate in the Company’s annual incentive plan in 2015,2018, aligning a portion of each employee’s cash compensation with Company performance.

These metrics were chosen to align management’s incentives with DNOW’s strategic goals, which have been extensively communicated with DNOW’s shareholders. Our shareholders consider both these metrics to be very important to them in judging the Company’s overall performance:

Each participant is assigned a target level percentage bonus (target incentive opportunity), which ranges from 5% to 100% of salary, depending on the level of the participant. There are three performance metric result multiplier levels of the target level percentage bonus set under the incentive plan for each of the two performance metrics – minimum (50%), target (100%) and maximum (200%) (the “performance result multiplier”metric result”). Entry level is the “minimum” level of EBITDA and Working Capital for which the Company provides an annual incentive payout.

If the Company’s EBITDA is less than the entry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive. If the Company’s Working Capital is less than the entry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive. If the Company achieves the entry level threshold for a performance metric, the “minimum” level payout of 50% of the target level percentage bonus is earned. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target EBITDA level is reached by the Company. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target Working Capital level is reached by the Company. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to occur, the Company’s EBITDA must equal or exceed the maximum EBITDA goal that was set for the incentive plan. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to occur, the Company’s Working Capital must equal or exceed the maximum Working Capital goal that was set for the incentive plan. Results falling between the stated thresholds of minimum, target and maximum will result in an interpolated, or sliding scale payout.

For 2015,2018, the chief executive officer’s participation level was 100%, the chief financial officer’s participation level was 80%, and the other executive officers’ participation levels were between75-80%. These participation level percentages are based on each executive’s level of responsibility for the Company’s financial performance. Mr. Miller,

A summary of the Company’s Executive Chairman, has voluntarily waived his right to participate in the Company’s annual incentive plan.executive officer’s participation level is below:

The Compensation Committee believes the use of two separate metrics, EBITDA and Working Capital, as the designated performance objectives under the annual incentive plan best align the interests of the Company’s stockholders and the Company’s executive officers. The “target” objective is set based on the Company’s operating and financial plan for that given year, which is thoroughly prepared and reviewed by the Company each year based on projected industry market conditions for that year and the operating budgets announced by companies in the industry. This plan and the “target” objective are fully reviewed and vetted by the Compensation Committee as well as the Company’s Board of Directors. The “target” objective is thus set at a level that the Company believes is challenging to meet but achievable if the Company properly and efficiently executes its operational plan and market conditions are positive and favorable during the year.    

The “minimum” and “maximum” level of operating profitEBITDA and Working Capital under the incentive plan are set based off of the “target” objective. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “minimum” objective to be set at a level that the Company can achieve even if market conditions are not as favorable and/or the Company’s operational plan is not executed as efficiently as planned.favorable. The “minimum” objective serves to motivate the Company’s executives to continue to work towards executing the Company’s operational plan if market conditions, which are generally outside the control of the Company, are not as favorable. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “maximum” objective to be set at a level that would be extremely challenging for the Company to achieve. The Compensation Committee believes that, for the “maximum” objective to be achieved, a combination of market conditions being much more favorable than initially forecasted and the Company executing its operational plan in a highly efficient manner would need to occur.

In February 2018, the Compensation Committee reviewed the metrics and weighting for the Company’s annual incentive plan for the Company’s executive officers. Taking into consideration the Company’s performance on the EBITDA and Working Capital metrics in 2017, the Compensation Committee decided to increase each of those metrics (the minimum, target and maximum levels) to make achievement of them in 2018 more challenging and difficult. The Compensation Committee in deciding to increase these metrics wanted to ensure the Company achieve financial performance in 2018 greater than that achieved in 2017 before allowing the executives to realize compensation under the Company’s annual incentive plan. Further, the Compensation Committee determined based on past performance, that the Company had achieved more success in meeting the Working Capital metric than the EBITDA metric. As the Compensation Committee wanted to incentivize the executives to improve EBITDA performance (income statement performance) on a level that it has Working Capital (balance sheet performance), the Compensation Committee decided to increase weighting to the EBITDA metric from 50% to 65%, with the remaining 35% weighting to Working Capital. In increasing the weighting of the EBITDA metric, the Compensation Committee also factored in that the Company’s shareholders generally consider the EBITDA metric the most important financial metric by which to measure the Company’s financial performance.

The metrics for EBITDA and Working Capital were set as follows by the Compensation Committee:

Payouts are calculateddetermined by multiplying (A)metric under the sum of (1)Company’s annual incentive plan using the performance result multiplier with respect to EBITDA performance, divided by two, and (2) the performance result multiplier with respect to Working Capital performance, divided by two, by (B) the participant’s base salary, by (C) the participant’s designated participation level percentage.following formula:

The following examples calculate an annual incentive award payment for Mr. Workman assuming (1) the Company’s 20152018 EBITDA and Working Capital were each equal to the entry level set under the incentive plan, (2) the Company’s 2018 EBITDA and Working Capital were each equal to the target set under the incentive plan, and (2)(3) the Company’s 20152018 EBITDA and Working Capital each exceeded the maximum set under the incentive plan:

The Company’s annual incentive plan is designedIf the Target level were reached in a given performance period for both metrics for Mr. Workman, the total award in this example would sum to reward its executives$700,000 ($455,000 earned in line with the financial performance ofEBITDA metric and $245,000 earned in the Company on an annual basis. When the Company is achieving strong financial results, its executives will be rewarded well through its annual incentive plan. The Company believes this structure helps keep the executives properly motivated to continue helping the Company achieve these strong results. While the executives’ financial benefit is reduced during times when the Company’s performance is not as strong, other forms of the Company’s compensation program, namely its long-term incentive compensation as well as base salary, help motivate its executives to remain with the Company to help it achieve strong financial and operational results, thereby benefiting the executive, the Company and its stockholders.Working Capital (WC/R) metric).

Market conditions in 2015 were extremely2018 improved but remained challenging. The worldwide average rig count declined 34.7% (from 3,578 to 2,337) and the U.S. rig count declined 47.5% (from 1,861 to 977) from 2014. The average price of West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude declined 47.8% (from $93.26 per barrel to $48.69 per barrel) and natural gas prices declined 40.0% (from $4.38 per MMBtu to $2.63 per MMBtu) from 2014.

The Company’s operating results were heavilypositively impacted by the very sharp and dramatic declines in both rig count and the price of WTI and natural gas throughout 2015,during 2018, resulting in the Company not achieving over the entrytarget level (“minimum”) of EBITDA orunder its annual cash incentive plan, as market conditions through most of 2018 were more favorable than originally anticipated. The Company was able to manage its balance sheet efficiently and well during 2018, resulting in the Company achieving better than the target level of Working Capital under its annual cash incentive plan. As a result, no

The Company’s achievement against the financial portion of the Annual Incentive Award in 2018 is as follows:

Thus, based on the Company’s financial results in 2018, bonus payments were made to the Company’s named executive officers, for 2015.as follows: Mr. Workman - $1,067,416; Mr. Cherechinsky - $494,061; Mr. Molinaro - $548,957; Mr. Chang - $487,962; and Mr. Johnson - $277,909.

Long-Term Incentive

Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer

The primary purposeCompensation Committee determines the compensation of the chief executive officer based on competitive peer group data, leadership, meeting operational goals, executing the Company’s business plan, and achieving certain financial results. Components of Mr. Workman’s compensation for 2018 are consistent with those for executive officers as described above and included base salary, participation in the annual incentive plan and the grant of stock options, restricted stock and performance awards.

In considering Mr. Workman’s base salary level, the Compensation Committee, generally on an annual basis, reviews the compensation level of chief executive officers of each of the companies in the designated peer group and considers Mr. Workman’s individual performance and success in achieving the Company’s strategic objectives.

The Compensation Committee establishes goals and objectives for Mr. Workman for each fiscal year. For 2018, Mr. Workman’s performance was measured in four key areas of the Company that align with DNOW’s strategic goals: (1) financial performance, (2) formulation and implementation of Company strategy, (3) operational performance, and (4) management and employee development. The specific goals within these four areas were set based on a determination of prioritizing Mr. Workman’s efforts on those specific areas and responsibilities that would have the greatest impact on the Company, and included the following:

Components of Compensation

The following describes the elements of the Company’s long-term incentive compensation program for 2018, why they were selected, and how the amounts of each element were determined.

Base Salary

Base salaries provide executives with a fixed level of monthly cash income. While the Compensation Committee is aware of competitive levels, actual salary levels are based on factors including tenure, individual performance, and level and scope of responsibility. The Company does not give specific weights to focus itsthese factors. The Compensation Committee determines median base salary levels by having L&A conduct a comprehensive review of information provided in proxy statements filed by our peer companies. Generally, each executive is reviewed by the Compensation Committee individually on an annual basis. Salary adjustments are based on the individual’s experience and background, the individual’s performance during the prior year, the general movement of salaries in the marketplace, our financial position and, for each executive other than the chief executive officer, the recommendations of our chief executive officer. The Compensation Committee does not establish specific individual goals for the Company’s named executive officers, onother than the chief executive officer (see “Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer” below for a longer-term perspective in their managerial responsibilities. This componentdiscussion of anthe chief executive officer’s compensation directly links the officers’ interests with thosegoals). The Compensation Committee’s analysis of the Company’s stockholders. In addition, long-term incentives encourage management to focus onindividual performance of any particular named executive officer is subjective in nature and takes into account the Company’s long-term development and prosperity in addition to profitability and optimal cash flow. This program helps balance long-term versus short-term business objectives, reinforcing that one should not be achieved at the expenserecommendations of the other. The Company’s long-term incentive compensation program also serveschief executive officer (other than with respect to helphim). As a result of these factors, an executive’s base salary may be above or below the Company attract and retain management talent.targeted median at any point in time.

In November 2014, the Compensation Committee reviewed with L&A the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that overall, the Company’s executives are generally aligned below the market 25^th percentile. Based on L&A’s analysis, the CEO was further behind the market than the other executives. The Compensation Committee also considered that there had been no adjustments to the Company’s named executive officers’ base salary since the Company’sspin-off from National Oilwell Varco in May 2014.

L&A recommended to the Compensation Committee that it adopt a philosophy of targeting base salaries near the market 50^th percentile of the Company’s designated peer group. Given that many of the executives were not near the market 50^th percentile, and to allow the executives to mature into their current roles, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. In November 2014, the Compensation Committee agreed to the staged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median (“Original Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

In November 2015, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. The results of such review were consistent with the analysis conducted in 2014, and were to be addressed by the Compensation Committee’s approval and implementation of the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan.

However, given the difficult and severe market conditions during 2015, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all below median levels of their designated peers (and in the case of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, discussed establishing a long-term incentive plan structurereviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Three Year Base Pay Plan to still be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the Company’s request and suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the Company.Company’s executive officers per the Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2016.

In November 2016, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A conducted a market studyof the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to determine what types of grants were used byhis peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given the continued difficult and severe market conditions during 2016, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee continue to suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all below median levels of their designated peers as well as(and in the type of grants the employeescase of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company were accustomedand L&A, reviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan to receiving during their employment with National Oilwell Varco beforestill be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the spin-off.Company’s request and continue to suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the Company’s executive officers per the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2017.

On February 21, 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to implement the previously approved base salary increase for Mr. David Cherechinsky, the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, to $300,000, noting that equity grantssuch base salary increase still put Mr. Cherechinsky’s base salary below the median market base salary level of his peers.

In November 2017, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and also given that the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years (and the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014), the Compensation Committee requested that L&A review and update the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, in an effort to come up with a long-term plan to align executive base salary pay to market median levels.

After such review and analysis, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. The Compensation Committee agreed to the staged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median, starting in 2018 (“Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

Thus, effective January 1, 2018, the Compensation Committee approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: Robert Workman – from $600,000 to $700,000; Daniel Molinaro – from $425,000 to $450,000; Raymond Chang – from $368,000 to $400,000; and David Cherechinsky – from $300,000 to $305,000. These base salary adjustments were the result of the Compensation Committee approving the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan, as a result of their following findings:

(1) the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile in base salary pay and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile,

(2) market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and

(3) the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years.

The Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was designed to address the above concerns, taking into further consideration that the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014, and the implementation of this new plan was designed to bring executive compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a three year period.

On February 20, 2018, the Compensation Committee, after consulting with L&A, approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: David Cherechinsky – from $305,000 to $405,000 and Mark Johnson – from $168,000 to $243,000. Increases in base salary for these executive officers were approved, effective February 16, 2018, as a result of such executive’s promotions to new positions at the Company and each of their increased responsibilities (Mr. Cherechinsky becoming the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Mr. Johnson becoming the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, effective February 16, 2018). While each of their new base salaries are still below the median level of

comparable salaries offered by the Company’s industry peers, it moves their prior salaries to a level closer to the median level and allows the Company to bring their compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a period of time.

In November 2018, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. L&A reviewed executive base salaries relative to the peer group, and determined that the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was still supported by market data. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was at the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions continued to improve in 2018 and the Company’s performance had improved as well in 2018 over 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to continue implementation of base salary adjustments for the Company’s executives underconsistent with the Update Three Year Base Pay Plan in 2019.

The Company’s named executive officers had the following base salaries at the end of 2018:

Annual Incentive Award

The objectives of the Company’s long-termannual cash incentive plan would consistare to incent performance to achieve the Company’s corporate growth and profitability goals, encourage smart investments and prudent employment of capital, incent efficient and optimal cash flow management, and provide competitive compensation packages to attract and retain management talent.

The Company’s annual incentive plan is designed to reward its executives in equal portions by value, stock options, time-based restricted stock and performance-based share awards. The Compensation Committee,line with the financial performance of the Company on an annual basis. When the Company is achieving strong financial results, its executives will be rewarded well through its annual incentive plan. The Company believes this structure helps keep the executives properly motivated to continue helping the Company achieve these strong results.

The Company’s annual incentive plan has two independent,pre-determinedand L&A believed it was important that a portion of the equity grants included a grant based on the satisfaction of a specified performance condition to determine vesting of that particular grant. After consultation with Company management and L&A, the Compensation Committee established three separate performanceequally weighted metrics to be used for vesting of the performance share awards for executives. The Compensation Committee believed that the performance measures they established would serve to motivatemeasure the Company’s executives to deliver results aligned with the interests of Company stockholders.

The performance share awards can be earned by the executives only by performance against established goalssuccess and vest three years from the grant date. The performance share awards are divided into three equal, independent parts that are subject to these three separate performance metrics: 33 1/3% with a TSR (total shareholder return) goal, 33 1/3% with an EBITDA goal and 33 1/3% with apayouts under such plan: (1) working capital as a percentage of revenue goal (working capital)(“Working Capital”) and (2) EBITDA percentage (“EBITDA”).

Performance against the TSR goal Working capital is determined by comparing the performancedefined as current assets (excluding cash) less current liabilities (excluding short-term borrowings). Substantially all corporate exempt employees of the Company’s TSR with the TSR performance of the members ofCompany, including executive officers, are eligible to participate in the Company’s designated peer group for the three year performance periodannual incentive plan in 2018, aligning a portion of the performance share awards. The Compensation Committee believes that the members ofeach employee’s cash compensation with Company performance.

These metrics were chosen to align management’s incentives with DNOW’s strategic goals, which have been extensively communicated with DNOW’s shareholders. Our shareholders consider both these metrics to be very important to them in judging the Company’s designated peer group are an appropriate benchmark against which to compare the Company’s TSR performance. The following table summarizes the relationship between the Company’s TSR performance when compared with the TSR performance of the members of its designated peer group and the associated payout levels for the performance achieved for the TSR portion of the award:overall performance:

Each participant is assigned a target level percentage bonus (target incentive opportunity), which ranges from 5% to 100% of salary, depending on the level of the participant. There are three performance metric result levels of the target level percentage bonus set under the incentive plan for each of the two performance metrics – minimum (50%), target (100%) and maximum (200%) (the “performance metric result”). Entry level is the “minimum” level of EBITDA and Working Capital for which the Company provides an annual incentive payout.

If the Company’s EBITDA is less than the entry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive. If the Company’s Working Capital is less than the entry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive. If the Company achieves the entry level threshold for a performance metric, the “minimum” level payout of 50% of the target level percentage bonus is earned. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target EBITDA level is reached by the Company. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target Working Capital level is reached by the Company. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to occur, the Company’s EBITDA must equal or exceed the maximum EBITDA goal that was set for the incentive plan. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to occur, the Company’s Working Capital must equal or exceed the maximum Working Capital goal that was set for the incentive plan. Results falling between the stated thresholds of minimum, target and maximum will result in an interpolated, or sliding scale payout.

Performance againstFor 2018, the chief executive officer’s participation level was 100%, the chief financial officer’s participation level was 80%, and the other executive officers’ participation levels were between75-80%. These participation level percentages are based on each executive’s level of responsibility for the Company’s financial performance.

A summary of the executive officer’s participation level is below:

The Compensation Committee believes the use of two separate metrics, EBITDA percentage goal is determined by comparingand Working Capital, as the designated performance objectives under the annual incentive plan best align the interests of the Company’s actual EBITDA percentage performance average for each ofstockholders and the three years of the performance period against the EBITDA goalCompany’s executive officers. The “target” objective is set by the Compensation Committee. The following table summarizes the payout levels on the EBITDA portion of the award based on the Company’s operating and financial plan for that given year, which is thoroughly prepared and reviewed by the Company each year based on projected industry market conditions for that year and the operating budgets announced by companies in the industry. This plan and the “target” objective are fully reviewed and vetted by the Compensation Committee as well as the Company’s Board of Directors. The “target” objective is thus set at a level that the Company believes is challenging to meet but achievable if the Company properly and efficiently executes its operational plan and market conditions are positive and favorable during the year.    

The “minimum” and “maximum” level of EBITDA percentageand Working Capital under the incentive plan are set based off of the “target” objective. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “minimum” objective to be set at a level that the Company can achieve even if market conditions are not as favorable. The “minimum” objective serves to motivate the Company’s executives to continue to work towards executing the Company’s operational plan if market conditions, which are generally outside the control of the Company, are not as favorable. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “maximum” objective to be set at a level that would be extremely challenging for the Company to achieve. The Compensation Committee believes that, for the “maximum” objective to be achieved, a combination of market conditions being much more favorable than initially forecasted and the Company executing its operational plan in a highly efficient manner would need to occur.

In February 2018, the Compensation Committee reviewed the metrics and weighting for the Company’s annual incentive plan for the Company’s executive officers. Taking into consideration the Company’s performance againston the EBITDA percentage goal:

Results falling betweenand Working Capital metrics in 2017, the stated thresholdsCompensation Committee decided to increase each of those metrics (the minimum, target and maximum will resultlevels) to make achievement of them in an interpolated, or sliding scale payout.

Performance against2018 more challenging and difficult. The Compensation Committee in deciding to increase these metrics wanted to ensure the working capital asCompany achieve financial performance in 2018 greater than that achieved in 2017 before allowing the executives to realize compensation under the Company’s annual incentive plan. Further, the Compensation Committee determined based on past performance, that the Company had achieved more success in meeting the Working Capital metric than the EBITDA metric. As the Compensation Committee wanted to incentivize the executives to improve EBITDA performance (income statement performance) on a percentage of revenue goal is determined by comparinglevel that it has Working Capital (balance sheet performance), the performanceCompensation Committee decided to increase weighting to the EBITDA metric from 50% to 65%, with the remaining 35% weighting to Working Capital. In increasing the weighting of the EBITDA metric, the Compensation Committee also factored in that the Company’s actual working capitalshareholders generally consider the EBITDA metric the most important financial metric by which to measure the Company’s financial performance.

The metrics for EBITDA and Working Capital were set as a percentage of revenue performance average for each of the three years of the performance period against the working capital as a percentage of revenue goal setfollows by the Compensation Committee. Committee:

Payouts are determined by metric under the Company’s annual incentive plan using the following formula:

The following table summarizesexamples calculate an annual incentive award payment for Mr. Workman assuming (1) the payout levels onCompany’s 2018 EBITDA and Working Capital were each equal to the working capitalentry level set under the incentive plan, (2) the Company’s 2018 EBITDA and Working Capital were each equal to the target set under the incentive plan, and (3) the Company’s 2018 EBITDA and Working Capital each exceeded the maximum set under the incentive plan:

If the Target level were reached in a given performance period for both metrics for Mr. Workman, the total award in this example would sum to $700,000 ($455,000 earned in the EBITDA metric and $245,000 earned in the Working Capital (WC/R) metric).

Market conditions in 2018 improved but remained challenging. The Company’s operating results were positively impacted by the price of WTI during 2018, resulting in the Company achieving over the target level of EBITDA under its annual cash incentive plan, as a percentagemarket conditions through most of revenue2018 were more favorable than originally anticipated. The Company was able to manage its balance sheet efficiently and well during 2018, resulting in the Company achieving better than the target level of Working Capital under its annual cash incentive plan.

The Company’s achievement against the financial portion of the awardAnnual Incentive Award in 2018 is as follows:

Thus, based on the Company’s working capital as a percentage of revenue performance against the working capital goal (WC):

Results falling between the stated thresholds of minimum, target and maximum will resultfinancial results in an interpolated, or sliding scale payout. Working capital for purposes of this calculation will exclude cash.

The Compensation Committee implemented this performance award structure to provide for long-term incentives comparable to those awards used by the Company’s peers, such as:

The Company grants stock options, time-based restricted stock and performance-based share awards2018, bonus payments were made to the Company’s key executives based on competitive grants within the industry and based on the level of long-term incentives appropriate for the competitive long-term compensation component of total compensation. Such executives are eligible to receive stock options, restricted stock and performance share awards annually with other key managers being eligible on a discretionary basis. Eligibility for an award does not ensure receipt of an award.

Options are granted with an exercise price per share equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant and generally vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period, and have a seven-year term subject to earlier termination. Option grants, restricted stock award grants and performance award grants must be reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee.

The Company’s long-term incentive compensation program is focused on employees who will have a greater impact on the direction and long-term results of the Company by virtue of their roles and responsibilities.

Based on the foregoing, on February 24, 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the grant of stock options to itsnamed executive officers, pursuant to the NOW Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan, as follows: Mr. Workman - $1,067,416; Mr. Cherechinsky - $494,061; Mr. Molinaro - $548,957; Mr. Chang - $487,962; and Mr. Johnson - $277,909.

The exercise price of the stock options is $22.44 per share, which was the closing stock price of NOW Inc. common stock on the date of grant. The stock options have a term of seven years from the date of grant and vest in three equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of the grant.

On February 24, 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the grant of time-based restricted stock to its executive officers pursuant to the NOW Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan, as follows:

The restricted stock awards granted by the Company to its executive officers vest 100% on the third anniversary of the date of grant.

On February 24, 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the grant of performance share awards to its executive officers pursuant to the NOW Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan, as follows:

The performance share awards can be earned by the executives only by performance against established goals and vest three years from the grant date. The performance share awards are divided into three equal, independent parts that are subject to three separate performance metrics: 33 1/3% with a TSR (total shareholder return) goal, 33 1/3% with an EBITDA percentage goal and 33 1/3% with a working capital as a percentage of revenue goal (working capital).

The Compensation Committee also designated an annual 2015 equity grant for Mr. Miller, the Company’s Executive Chairman, in the form of stock options, time-based restricted stock and performance share awards. Mr. Miller voluntarily requested that he be allowed to decline receiving such grant and waive his right to it. While the size of his grant was fully supported by market data, as confirmed by L&A, the Compensation Committee respected Mr. Miller’s wishes and allowed him to decline receiving such proposed grant.

The goal of the stock option program is to provide a compensation program that is competitive within the industry while directly linking a significant portion of the executive’s compensation to the enhancement of stockholder value. The ultimate value of any stock option is based solely on the increase in value of the shares of the Company’s common stock over the grant price. Accordingly, stock options have value only if the Company’s stock price appreciates from the date of grant. Additionally, the option holder must remain employed during the period required for the option to “vest”, thus providing an incentive for an option holder to remain employed by the Company. This at-risk component of compensation focuses executives on the creation of stockholder value over the long-term and is therefore inherently performance-based compensation.

The goal of the performance-based share award program is to provide a compensation program that is also competitive within the industry while directly linking a significant portion of the executive’s compensation to the financial performance of the Company. The performance-based share awards received by the executives have value only if the Company’s designated financial performance objectives are met and exceeded. Additionally, the holder must also remain employed during the period required for the award to “vest”, thus providing an additional incentive for the award holder to remain employed by the Company. This at-risk component of compensation focuses executives on achieving strong financial performance for the Company over the long-term.

The goal of time-based restricted stock award grants is to serve as a key retention tool for the Company to retain its executives and key employees. The restricted stock awards will have value to the executive even if the Company’s stock price falls below the price on the date of grant, provided that the executive remain employed during the period required for the award to “vest”.

The Company believes that its equity incentive grants must be sufficient in size and duration to provide a long-term performance and retention incentive for executives and to increase their interest in the appreciation of the Company’s stock and achievement of positive financial results, both in absolute terms and relative to its peers. The Company believes that stock option, restricted stock and performance award grants at a competitive level, with certain vesting requirements, are an effective way of promoting the long-term nature of its business.

Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer

The Compensation Committee determines the compensation of the chief executive officer based on competitive peer group data, leadership, meeting operational goals, executing the Company’s business plan, and achieving certain financial results. Components of Mr. Workman’s compensation for 20152018 are consistent with those for executive officers as described above and included base salary, participation in the annual incentive plan and the grant of stock options, restricted stock and performance awards.

In considering Mr. Workman’s base salary level, the Compensation Committee, generally on an annual basis, reviews the compensation level of chief executive officers of each of the companies in the designated peer group and considers Mr. Workman’s individual performance and success in achieving the Company’s strategic objectives.

The Compensation Committee establishes goals and objectives for Mr. Workman for each fiscal year. For 2015,2018, Mr. Workman’s performance will bewas measured in four key areas of the Company:Company that align with DNOW’s strategic goals: (1) financial performance, (2) formulation and implementation of Company strategy, (3) operational performance, and (4) management and employee development. The specific goals within these four areas were set based on a determination of prioritizing Mr. Workman’s efforts on those specific areas and responsibilities that would have the greatest impact on the Company, and included the following:

Retirement, Health and Welfare BenefitsComponents of Compensation

The following describes the elements of the Company’s compensation program for 2018, why they were selected, and how the amounts of each element were determined.

Base Salary

Base salaries provide executives with a fixed level of monthly cash income. While the Compensation Committee is aware of competitive levels, actual salary levels are based on factors including tenure, individual performance, and level and scope of responsibility. The Company offers retirement, healthdoes not give specific weights to these factors. The Compensation Committee determines median base salary levels by having L&A conduct a comprehensive review of information provided in proxy statements filed by our peer companies. Generally, each executive is reviewed by the Compensation Committee individually on an annual basis. Salary adjustments are based on the individual’s experience and welfare programsbackground, the individual’s performance during the prior year, the general movement of salaries in the marketplace, our financial position and, for each executive other than the chief executive officer, the recommendations of our chief executive officer. The Compensation Committee does not establish specific individual goals for the Company’s named executive officers, other than the chief executive officer (see “Compensation of the Chief Executive Officer” below for a discussion of the chief executive officer’s goals). The Compensation Committee’s analysis of the individual performance of any particular named executive officer is subjective in nature and takes into account the recommendations of the chief executive officer (other than with respect to him). As a result of these factors, an executive’s base salary may be above or below the targeted median at any point in time.

In November 2014, the Compensation Committee reviewed with L&A the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that overall, the Company’s executives are generally aligned below the market 25^th percentile. Based on L&A’s analysis, the CEO was further behind the market than the other executives. The Compensation Committee also considered that there had been no adjustments to the Company’s named executive officers’ base salary since the Company’sspin-off from National Oilwell Varco in May 2014.

L&A recommended to the Compensation Committee that it adopt a philosophy of targeting base salaries near the market 50^th percentile of the Company’s designated peer group. Given that many of the executives were not near the market 50^th percentile, and to allow the executives to mature into their current roles, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. In November 2014, the Compensation Committee agreed to the staged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median (“Original Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

In November 2015, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. The results of such review were consistent with the analysis conducted in 2014, and were to be addressed by the Compensation Committee’s approval and implementation of the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan.

However, given the difficult and severe market conditions during 2015, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all eligible employees.below median levels of their designated peers (and in the case of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, reviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Three Year Base Pay Plan to still be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the Company’s request and suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the Company’s executive officers per the Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2016.

In November 2016, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally are eligiblealigned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given the continued difficult and severe market conditions during 2016, Company management requested that the Compensation Committee continue to suspend the previously approved Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and maintain each executive’s base salary at current levels, even though such existing base salary levels were all below median levels of their designated peers (and in the case of the chief executive officer, below the market 25^th percentile). The Compensation Committee, in consultation with the Company and L&A, reviewed the Company’s request. While the Compensation Committee found the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan to still be fully supported by market data, it agreed to honor the Company’s request and continue to suspend implementation of the previously approved base salary adjustments for the same benefit programsCompany’s executive officers per the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, and agreed to take such actions taken by Company management into consideration when compensation was reviewed again in 2017.

On February 21, 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to implement the previously approved base salary increase for Mr. David Cherechinsky, the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, to $300,000, noting that such base salary increase still put Mr. Cherechinsky’s base salary below the median market base salary level of his peers.

In November 2017, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and also given that the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years (and the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014), the Compensation Committee requested that L&A review and update the Original Three Year Base Pay Plan, in an effort to come up with a long-term plan to align executive base salary pay to market median levels.

After such review and analysis, L&A recommended that increases to base salaries to achieve near the market 50^th percentile be made over a period of three years, so as to limit the amount of any increases over a one year period and to allow the Compensation Committee to review and make any further adjustments on an annual basis. The Compensation Committee agreed to the same basisstaged increases in base salary pay over a three year period, subject to an annual cap that would allow the Company to maintain fiscal responsibility and better manage pay for performance alignment while salaries adjust to the market median, starting in 2018 (“Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan”).

Thus, effective January 1, 2018, the Compensation Committee approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: Robert Workman – from $600,000 to $700,000; Daniel Molinaro – from $425,000 to $450,000; Raymond Chang – from $368,000 to $400,000; and David Cherechinsky – from $300,000 to $305,000. These base salary adjustments were the result of the Compensation Committee approving the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan, as a result of their following findings:

(1) the restCompany’s chief executive officer was still below the market 25^th percentile in base salary pay and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile,

(2) market conditions during 2017 had improved and the Company’s performance had improved as well, and

(3) the Company’s executive officers had not had any base salary adjustments for three years.

The Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was designed to address the above concerns, taking into further consideration that the executives’ base salary levels have remained below median levels since the Company wasspun-off in 2014, and the implementation of this new plan was designed to bring executive compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a three year period.

On February 20, 2018, the Compensation Committee, after consulting with L&A, approved the following base salary increases for the Company’s executive officers: David Cherechinsky – from $305,000 to $405,000 and Mark Johnson – from $168,000 to $243,000. Increases in base salary for these executive officers were approved, effective February 16, 2018, as a result of such executive’s promotions to new positions at the Company and each of their increased responsibilities (Mr. Cherechinsky becoming the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Mr. Johnson becoming the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer, effective February 16, 2018). While each of their new base salaries are still below the median level of

comparable salaries offered by the Company’s industry peers, it moves their prior salaries to a level closer to the median level and allows the Company to bring their compensation closer to the market 50^th percentile over a period of time.

In November 2018, the Compensation Committee conducted its annual review with L&A of the base salaries of the named executive officers. L&A reviewed executive base salaries relative to the peer group, and determined that the Updated Three Year Base Pay Plan was still supported by market data. The Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s base salary relative to his peers and found that the Company’s chief executive officer was at the market 25^th percentile and the other executives were generally aligned between the market 25^th percentile and the market 50^th percentile. Given that market conditions continued to improve in 2018 and the Company’s performance had improved as well in 2018 over 2017, the Compensation Committee agreed to continue implementation of base salary adjustments for the Company’s executives consistent with the Update Three Year Base Pay Plan in 2019.

The Company’s named executive officers had the following base salaries at the end of 2018:

Annual Incentive Award

The objectives of the Company’s employees. The healthannual cash incentive plan are to incent performance to achieve the Company’s corporate growth and welfare programs cover medical, pharmacy, dental, vision, life, business travel accident, accidental deathprofitability goals, encourage smart investments and dismembermentprudent employment of capital, incent efficient and disability insurance.optimal cash flow management, and provide competitive compensation packages to attract and retain management talent.

The Company’s annual incentive plan is designed to reward its executives in line with the financial performance of the Company offers retirement programs that are intendedon an annual basis. When the Company is achieving strong financial results, its executives will be rewarded well through its annual incentive plan. The Company believes this structure helps keep the executives properly motivated to supplementcontinue helping the employee’s personal savings. Company achieve these strong results.

The programs includeCompany’s annual incentive plan has two independent,pre-determined and equally weighted metrics to measure the NOW Inc. 401(k)Company’s success and Retirement Savings Planpayouts under such plan: (1) working capital as a percentage of revenue (“401k Plan”Working Capital”) and NOW Inc. Supplemental Savings Plan(2) EBITDA percentage (“Supplemental Plan”EBITDA”). The Company’s U.S.Working capital is defined as current assets (excluding cash) less current liabilities (excluding short-term borrowings). Substantially all corporate exempt employees of the Company, including its executives,executive officers, are generally eligible to participate in the 401k Plan. Employees of the Company who are eligible based on guidelines established by the Company’s benefitsannual incentive plan administrative committee may participate in the Supplemental Plan. Participation in the 401k Plan and Supplemental Plan are voluntary.

The Company established the 401k Plan to allow employees to save for retirement through a tax-advantaged combination of employee and Company contributions and to provide employees the opportunity to directly manage their retirement plan assets through a variety of investment options. The 401k Plan allows eligible employees to elect to contribute2018, aligning a portion of their eligibleeach employee’s cash compensation intowith Company performance.

These metrics were chosen to align management’s incentives with DNOW’s strategic goals, which have been extensively communicated with DNOW’s shareholders. Our shareholders consider both these metrics to be very important to them in judging the 401k Plan. Wages and salariesCompany’s overall performance:

Each participant is assigned a target level percentage bonus (target incentive opportunity), which ranges from the Company are generally considered eligible compensation. After one year5% to 100% of service, employee contributions are matched in cash by the Company at the rate of $1.00 per $1.00 employee contribution for the first 4% of the employee’s salary. In addition, the Company makes cash contributions for all eligible employees between 2.5% and 5.5% of their salary, depending on the employee’s full yearslevel of service with the Company. Such contributions vest immediately. The 401k Plan offers 25 different investment options,participant. There are three performance metric result levels of the target level percentage bonus set under the incentive plan for each of the two performance metrics – minimum (50%), target (100%) and maximum (200%) (the “performance metric result”). Entry level is the “minimum” level of EBITDA and Working Capital for which the participant has sole discretion in determining how both the employer and employee contributions are invested. The 401k PlanCompany provides an annual incentive payout.

If the Company’s employeesEBITDA is less than the optionentry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive. If the Company’s Working Capital is less than the entry level threshold, then there is no payout in that fiscal year for the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive. If the Company achieves the entry level threshold for a performance metric, the “minimum” level payout of 50% of the target level percentage bonus is earned. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target EBITDA level is reached by the Company. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, the target multiplier level (100% of the participant’s applicable percentage of base salary) is earned when the target Working Capital level is reached by the Company. For the EBITDA portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to invest directlyoccur, the Company’s EBITDA must equal or exceed the maximum EBITDA goal that was set for the incentive plan. For the Working Capital portion of the annual incentive plan, for the “maximum” level multiplier of 200% of the target level percentage bonus to occur, the Company’s Working Capital must equal or exceed the maximum Working Capital goal that was set for the incentive plan. Results falling between the stated thresholds of minimum, target and maximum will result in an interpolated, or sliding scale payout.

For 2018, the chief executive officer’s participation level was 100%, the chief financial officer’s participation level was 80%, and the other executive officers’ participation levels were between75-80%. These participation level percentages are based on each executive’s level of responsibility for the Company’s financial performance.

A summary of the executive officer’s participation level is below:

The Compensation Committee believes the use of two separate metrics, EBITDA and Working Capital, as the designated performance objectives under the annual incentive plan best align the interests of the Company’s stockholders and the Company’s executive officers. The “target” objective is set based on the Company’s operating and financial plan for that given year, which is thoroughly prepared and reviewed by the Company each year based on projected industry market conditions for that year and the operating budgets announced by companies in the industry. This plan and the “target” objective are fully reviewed and vetted by the Compensation Committee as well as the Company’s stock.Board of Directors. The 401k Plan offers in-service withdrawals, loans“target” objective is thus set at a level that the Company believes is challenging to meet but achievable if the Company properly and hardship distributions.efficiently executes its operational plan and market conditions are positive and favorable during the year.    

The “minimum” and “maximum” level of EBITDA and Working Capital under the incentive plan are set based off of the “target” objective. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “minimum” objective to be set at a level that the Company can achieve even if market conditions are not as favorable. The “minimum” objective serves to motivate the Company’s executives to continue to work towards executing the Company’s operational plan if market conditions, which are generally outside the control of the Company, are not as favorable. The Compensation Committee believes this objective, formulaic measure allows the “maximum” objective to be set at a level that would be extremely challenging for the Company to achieve. The Compensation Committee believes that, for the “maximum” objective to be achieved, a combination of market conditions being much more favorable than initially forecasted and the Company executing its operational plan in a highly efficient manner would need to occur.

In February 2018, the Compensation Committee reviewed the metrics and weighting for the Company’s annual incentive plan for the Company’s executive officers. Taking into consideration the Company’s performance on the EBITDA and Working Capital metrics in 2017, the Compensation Committee decided to increase each of those metrics (the minimum, target and maximum levels) to make achievement of them in 2018 more challenging and difficult. The Compensation Committee in deciding to increase these metrics wanted to ensure the Company achieve financial performance in 2018 greater than that achieved in 2017 before allowing the executives to realize compensation under the Company’s annual incentive plan. Further, the Compensation Committee determined based on past performance, that the Company had achieved more success in meeting the Working Capital metric than the EBITDA metric. As the Compensation Committee wanted to incentivize the executives to improve EBITDA performance (income statement performance) on a level that it has Working Capital (balance sheet performance), the Compensation Committee decided to increase weighting to the EBITDA metric from 50% to 65%, with the remaining 35% weighting to Working Capital. In increasing the weighting of the EBITDA metric, the Compensation Committee also factored in that the Company’s shareholders generally consider the EBITDA metric the most important financial metric by which to measure the Company’s financial performance.

The Company establishedmetrics for EBITDA and Working Capital were set as follows by the Supplemental Plan, a non-qualified plan, toCompensation Committee: