SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14A-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant  x                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

26462 Corporate Avenue

Hayward, CA 94545

NOTICE OF 20122015 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Meeting begins at 12:30 p.m. Pacific time

1600 El Camino Real

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Sincerely,

/s/ James P. Scholhamer

Clarence GrangerJames P. Scholhamer

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

April 20, 201227, 2015

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

20122015 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

26462 Corporate Avenue

Hayward, CA 94545

PROXY STATEMENT FOR 20122015 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

May 17, 2012June 4, 2015

INFORMATION CONCERNING SOLICITATION AND VOTING

Your vote is very important. For this reason our Board of Directors is requesting that you permit your shares of common stock to be represented at our 20122015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders by the proxies named on the enclosed proxy card. This proxy statement contains important information for you to consider in deciding how to vote on the matters brought before the meeting. The date of this proxy statement is April 20, 2012.27, 2015. The proxy statement and form of proxy are first being mailed to our stockholders on or about April 23, 2012.May 5, 2015.

Important Notice Regarding The Availability Of Proxy Materials For The Stockholder Meeting To Be Held On May 17, 2012:June 4, 2015: This Proxy Statement, along with our 20112014 Annual Report to Stockholders are available on the following website: https:http://materials.proxyvote.com/90835V90385V.

General Information

Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc., referred to in this proxy statement as “Ultra Clean”,Clean,” the “Company” or “we”,“we,” is soliciting the enclosed proxy for use at our Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 17, 2012on June 4, 2015 at 3:0012:30 p.m., Pacific time or at any adjournment thereof for the purposes set forth in this proxy statement. Our annual meeting will be held at the offices of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, 1600 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, California 94025.

Who May Attend and Vote at Our Annual Meeting

All holders of our common stock, as reflected in our records at the close of business on March 27, 2012,April 2, 2015, the record date for voting, may attend and vote at the meeting. To attend the annual meeting, you must present photo identification for admittance. If you are not a stockholder of record but hold shares as a beneficial owner in street name, you must also provide proof of beneficial ownership as of the record date, such as your most recent account statement prior to the record date, a copy of the voting instruction card provided by your broker, bank, trustee, or nominee, or other similar evidence of ownership.

Each share of common stock that you owned on the record date entitles you to one vote on each matter properly brought before the meeting. As of the record date, there were issued and outstanding 23,793,87531,615,185 shares of our common stock, $0.001 par value.

Holding Shares as a “Beneficial Owner” (or in “Street Name”)

Most stockholders are considered the “beneficial owners” of their shares, that is, they hold their shares through a broker, bank or nominee rather than directly in their own names. As summarized below, there are some distinctions between shares held of record and those owned beneficially or in “street name”.name.”

Stockholder of Record.Record. If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, you are considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares. If you are a stockholder of record, we are sending paper copies of the proxy materials directly to you. As our stockholder of record, you have the right to

grant your voting proxy directly to us by mailing the enclosed proxy card, votingto vote on the Internet, or by telephone, or to vote in person at the annual meeting.

Beneficial Owner.Owner. If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of shares held in street name, and the proxy statement is being forwarded to you by or on behalf of your broker, bank or nominee (who is considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares). As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank, or nominee how to vote by following the instructions you receive from your broker, bank or nominee. You are also invited to attend the annual meeting. However, since you are not the stockholder of record, you may not vote these shares in person at the annual meeting unless you request, complete and deliver a proxy from your broker, bank or nominee.

How to Vote

You may vote in person at the meeting or by proxy. You may vote by proxy over the Internet, by telephone or by mail if you complete and return the enclosed proxy card. We recommend that you vote by proxy even if you plan to attend the meeting. You may change your vote at the meeting even if you have previously submitted a proxy.

How Proxies Work

This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by us for use at the annual meeting and at any adjournment of that meeting. If you give us your proxy you authorize us to vote your shares at the meeting in the manner you direct. You may vote for all, some or none of our director candidates. You may also vote for or against the other proposals, or you may abstain from voting.

If you give us your proxy but do not specify how your shares shall be voted on a particular matter, your shares will be voted:

Changing Your Vote

You have the right to revoke your previously submitted proxy at any time before your proxy is exercised at the annual meeting.

You may revoke your proxy by resubmitting your vote on a later date on the Internet or by telephone (only your latest Internet or telephone proxy submitted prior to the meeting will be counted), by signing and returning a new proxy card with a later date, by attending the meeting and voting in person or by giving written notice to our Secretary that you wish to revoke your previously submitted proxy.

Important Notice Regarding Delivery of Stockholder Documents

Only one proxy statement, annual report and set of accompanying materials, if applicable, isare being delivered by us to multiple stockholders sharing an address, who have consented to receiving one set of such materials, until we receive contrary instructions from one or more ofany such stockholders. We will deliver, promptly upon written or oral request, a separate copy of such materials to a stockholder at a shared address to which a single

copy of such materials was delivered. A stockholder who wishes to receive a separate copy of the proxy statement and accompanying materials now or in the future, or stockholders sharing an address who are receiving multiple copies of the proxy statement and accompanying materials and wish to receive a single copy of such materials, should submit a request to Broadridge, c/o Householding Department, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717 or call 800-542-1061.

Attending in Person

Any stockholder of record may vote in person at the annual meeting of our stockholders. All meeting attendees will be required to present a valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, in order to enter the meeting.

If you are a beneficial owner and your shares are held in the name of your broker, bank or nominee, you must bring a proxy from your broker, bank or nominee.nominee in order to vote in person.

Votes Needed to Hold the Meeting and Approve Proposals

In order to carry on the business of the annual meeting, stockholders entitled to cast a majority of the votes at a meeting of stockholders must be represented at the meeting, either in person or by proxy. In accordance with Delaware law, only votes cast “for” a matter constitute affirmative votes. A properly executed proxy marked “abstain” with respect to any matter will not be voted, although it will be counted for purposes of determining whether there is a quorum. Since abstentions will not be votes cast for a particular proposal, they will have the same effect as negative votes or votes against that proposal. Broker non-votes are also counted for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. Broker non-votes occur when shares held by a broker on behalf of a beneficial owner are not voted with respect to a particular proposal, which generally occurs when the broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner and lacks the discretionary authority to vote the shares itself.

Election of Directors.Directors. The election of directors requires a plurality of the votes cast “for” the election of directors. “Plurality” means that the fiveseven nominees who receive the highest number of votes will be elected as directors. In the election of directors, votes may be cast in favor of or withheld from any or all nominees. Brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote shares without instructions from beneficial owners in the election of directors. Therefore, beneficial owners who are not stockholders of record and who want their votevotes to be counted in the election of directors must give voting instructions to their bank, broker or nominee before the date of the annual meeting.

Ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm.firm. The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on the proposal will be required to ratify the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year. We believe that the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm is a routine proposal for which brokers may vote shares held on behalf of beneficial owners who have not given voting instructions with respect to that proposal.

Advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers.officers. The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on the proposal will be required to approve, by an advisory vote, the compensation of our named executive officers for fiscal 2011.2014. The advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers is not considered a routine proposal; therefore, brokers lack the discretionary authority to vote shares without instructions from beneficial owners for this proposal.

Approval of any other matter properly submitted to the stockholders at the annual meeting generally will require the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on that matter.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The table below sets forth information as of March 30, 201227, 2015 regarding the beneficial ownership (as defined by Rule 13d-3(d)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) of our common stock by:

In accordance with applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), beneficial ownership includes voting or investment power with respect to securities and includes the shares issuable pursuant to stock options that are exercisable, and shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units that vest, within 60 days of March 30, 2012.27, 2015. Shares issuable pursuant to the exercise of stock options, and shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units that vest, in the 60 days following March 30, 201227, 2015, are deemed outstanding for the purpose of computing the ownership percentage of the person holding such options, or shares of restricted stock or restricted stock units, but are not deemed outstanding for computing the ownership percentage of any other person. The percentage of beneficial ownership for the following table is based on 23,794,92931,485,459 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 30, 2012.27, 2015.

The address of each of the named individuals in the table below is c/o Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc., 26462 Corporate Avenue, Hayward, CA 94545.94545 unless otherwise indicated below. To our knowledge, except as indicated in the footnotes to this table and pursuant to applicable community property laws, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock.

(3)	Based on a Schedule 13G13G/A filed with the SEC on February 8, 2012.4, 2015.

At the close of business on March 27, 2012,April 2, 2015, the record date, we had 23,793,87531,615,185 shares of common stock outstanding. Each share of our common stock is entitled to one vote on all matters properly submitted for a stockholder vote.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) requires our directors, and executive officers and beneficial holders of 10% or more of a registered class of our equity securities to file certain reports with the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC regarding ownership of, and transactions in, our equity securities. We have reviewed copies of the reports we received and written representations from the individualsour directors and officers required to file the reports.

Based solely on our review of such reports and representations, except as described in the following paragraph, we believe that all of our directors, executive officers and beneficial holders of 10% or more of a registered class of our equity securities filed, on a timely basis, all reports required by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act for the year ended December 30, 2011.26, 2014.

The following is a list of all reports that we are aware were not filed on a timely basis

Cost of Proxy Solicitation

We will pay the cost of this proxy solicitation. Some of our employees may also solicit proxies, without any additional compensation. We may also reimburse banks, brokerage firms and nominees for their expenses in forwarding proxy materials to their customers who are beneficial owners of our common stock and obtaining their voting instructions.

Deadline for Receipt of Stockholder Proposals

If you wish to submit a proposal for inclusion in the proxy statement for our 20132016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, you must follow the procedures outlined in Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, and we must receive your proposal at the address below no later than December 21, 2012.January 6, 2016. Stockholders intending to present a

proposal at the next annual meeting without the inclusion of such proposal in the Company’s proxy materials, including for the election of director nominees, must comply with the requirements set forth in our bylaws. The bylaws require, among other things, that a stockholder must submit a written notice of intent to present such a proposal at the address below not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting of stockholders (as long as the date of the annual meeting is not advanced more than 30 days prior to such anniversary date or delayed more than 70 days after such anniversary date, in which case notice must be received no earlier than 120 days prior to such meeting and no later than the later of 70 days prior to such meeting or the 10^th10th day following the public announcement of the date of such meeting). Therefore, we must receive notice of such proposal for the 20132016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders no earlier than January 17, 2013February 5, 2016 and no later than February 16, 2013,March 6, 2016, otherwise such notice will be considered untimely and we will not be required to present it at the 20132016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Company reserves the right to reject, rule out of order or take other appropriate action with respect to any proposal that does not comply with these and other applicable requirements.

Contacting Ultra Clean

If you have questions or would like more information about the annual meeting, you can contact us in either of the following ways:

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our Amended and Restated Bylaws provide that our Board of Directors shall be elected at the annual meeting of our stockholders, and each director so elected shall hold office until such director’s successor is elected and qualified or until such director’s earlier death, resignation or removal. Our Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, has recommended for nomination the nominees for director named below. All of these nominees, other than Thomas T. Edman and Barbara V. Scherer, currently serve as our directors.

Each nominee has consented to serve as a nominee, to serve as a director if elected, and to being named a nominee in this Proxy Statement. Susan Billat will not stand for reelection at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. If a director nominee becomes unavailable before the election, your proxy authorizes the people named as proxies to vote for a replacement nominee if the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee names one.

Set forth below is information about each of our nominees for director:

Clarence L. Grangerhas served as a member of our Board of Directors since May 2002 and as our Chairman & Chief Executive Officer sinceSince October 2006,2006. Mr. Granger also served as our Chief Executive Officer sincefrom November 2002 to January 2015 and, as our Chief Operating Officer from March 1999 to November 2002, and as a member of our Board of Directors since May 2002. Mr. Granger served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from January 1998 to March 1999 and as our Executive Vice President of Operations from April 1996 to January 1998. Prior to joining Ultra Clean in April 1996, he served as Vice Presidentvice president of Media Operations for Seagate Technology, which designs, manufactures, markets and sells hard disk drives, from 1994 to 1996. Prior to that, Mr. Granger worked for HMT Technology, a supplier of high-performance thin-film disks, as Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer from 1993 to 1994, as Chief Operating Officerchief operating officer from 1991 to 1993 and as Presidentpresident from 1989 to 1994. Prior to that, Mr. Granger worked for Xidex as Vice Presidentvice president and General Manager,general manager, Thin Film Disk Division, from 1988 to 1989, as Vice President,vice president, Santa Clara Oxide Disk Operations, from 1987 to 1988, as Vice President,vice president, U.S. Tape Operations, from 1986 to 1987 and as Directordirector of Engineeringengineering from 1983 to 1986. Mr. Granger holds a master of science degree in industrial engineering from Stanford University and a bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. Mr. Granger is our Chief Executive Officer and has been with our company for 14 years. Our Board of Directors values hisMr. Granger’s perspective as the leader of our strategic planning process as well asformer chief executive officer and his intimate knowledge of our employee base, operations, customers, suppliers and competitive position in the semiconductor capital equipment industry.

Susan BillatJames P. Scholhamerhas joined Ultra Clean as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors in January 2015. Prior to joining Ultra Clean, Mr. Scholhamer served as a directorCorporate Vice President and General Manager of Ultra Clean since March 2004. Since 2002, Ms. Billat has been a Principal at Benchmark Strategies, a consulting firm, which she foundedApplied Materials, Inc., leading the Equipment Products Group and Display Services Group of its Global Service Division from February 2011 to January 2015. Mr. Scholhamer joined Applied Materials, Inc. in 1990. Prior2006, where, prior to that, she was a Managing Director and Senior Research Analyst for semiconductor equipment and foundries at Robertson Stephens & Company, the former investment bank, from 1996 to 2002 and Seniorhis most recent position, he served as Vice President of MarketingOperations-Energy for Ultratech Stepper, a public company manufacturing semiconductorthe Environmental and disk drive equipment,Display Products Division from 1994July 2006 to 1996.December 2008 and Corporate Vice President and General Manager of the Display Business Group from December 2008 to February 2011. Prior to 1994, Ms. Billat spent eight years in executive positionsthat,

Mr. Scholhamer worked for Applied Films Corporation as Vice President of Operations, Engineering and Research Development in the semiconductor equipment industrycompany’s Germany office from September 2002 to July 2006 and twelve years in operations management, engineering managementas Vice President of Thin Film Coating Division and process engineeringThin Film Equipment Division in the semiconductor industry. Ms. Billat was oncompany’s Colorado office from July 2000 to September 2002. Mr. Scholhamer holds a Bachelor of Science degree in materials and metallurgical engineering from the boardUniversity of directors of PDF Solutions, Inc. from 2003 to 2008. Ms. Billat holds bachelor and master of science degrees in physics from Georgia Tech and completed further graduate studies in electrical engineering and engineering management at Stanford University.Michigan. Our Board of Directors values Ms. Billat’s extensivebelieves that Mr. Scholhamer brings strong engineering and operations experience into our Board of Directors and will provide the semiconductor industryBoard of Directors with a unique perspective as our chief executive and background in operations, marketing and investor relations. Ms. Billat qualifies as a financial expert and provides important support to the Audit Committee.

John Chenaulthas served as a director of Ultra Clean since June 2009. Mr. Chenault served as Chief Financial Officerchief financial officer of Novellus Systems, a semiconductor company, from April 2005 to September 2005, at which point he retired. Prior to that, he served as Vice Presidentvice president of Corporate Development from February 2005 to April 2005, Vice Presidentvice president of Operationoperation and Administrationadministration from September 2003 to February 2005, Executive Vice Presidentexecutive vice president of Worldwide Salesworldwide sales and Serviceservice from February 2002 to September 2003 and Executive Vice Presidentexecutive vice president of Business Operationsbusiness operations from July 1997 to January 2002. Mr. Chenault has also been a director and a member of the audit committee of Tessera Technologies, Inc. since March 2013 and he was a director of Synos Technology, Inc. until it was acquired by Veeco Instruments, Inc. in October 2013. Mr. Chenault holds a bachelor of business degree in economics and a masters degree in business administration from Western Illinois University. Our Board of Directors values Mr. Chenault’s extensive management and operations experience in the semiconductor industry. As a former executive officer in various capacities at one of our major customers, Mr. Chenault brings a valuable customer facing perspective to our Board of Directors. Mr. Chenault qualifies as a financial expert and chairs the Audit Committee.

David T. ibnAlehas served as a director of Ultra Clean since November 2002 and served as our lead director from February 2005 to February 2007. Mr. ibnAle has been a Managing Directortechnology investor since 1996, and is a managing partner of Reticle Equity Investors, LLC, a technology-focused investment firm. From January 2012 to July 2013, Mr. ibnAle was a managing partner of Augusta Columbia Capital Group, a technology-focused private equity firm. From March 2008 to December 2011, Mr. ibnAle was a managing director of TPG Growth, LLC, the small-cap and growth investing arm of TPG, a global private equity firm, since May 2008.firm. From April 2007December 1999 to March 2008, Mr. ibnAle was a Partner of Francisco Partners, a private equity firm, and from December 1999 to April 2007, he was an investment professional with Francisco Partners. PriorPartners, a technology-focused private equity firm, and prior to joining Francisco Partners, Mr. ibnAle was an investment professional with Summit Partners L.P., a private equity and venture capital firm, and prior to that he worked in the Corporate Finance Department of Morgan Stanley & Co, an investment bank.firm. Mr. ibnAle has previously served onas the boardschairman or as a member of the board of directors of several technology firms, including PowerPlan, Inc., Artel, LLC, Metrologic Instruments, Inc., Mitel Networks Corp., and Electrical Components International, from 2006 to 2008, Metrologic Instruments from 2000 to 2008, Vitronics-Soltec from 2006 to 2008, Universal Instruments from 2006 to 2008 and Mitel Communications from 2007 to 2008.Inc. Mr. ibnAle holds an A.B. in public policyPublic Policy and an A.M. in international development policyInternational Development Policy from Stanford University and a masters degree in business administration from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Our Board of Directors values Mr. ibnAle’s experience as an investment professional, as well his experience in strategic planning and mergers and acquisitions, as he brings significant quantitative and qualitative financial experience to our Board of Directors. Mr. ibnAle qualifies as a financial expert and provides important support to theas a member of our Audit Committee.

Leonid Mezhvinskyhas served as a director of Ultra Clean since February 2007. Mr. Mezhvinsky served as our Presidentpresident from June 2006 to December 2007, following our acquisition of Sieger Engineering, Inc. He has more than two decades of management experience and in-depth knowledge of machine shop, electro mechanical assemblies and system integration utilized in semiconductor, medical and biotech OEM products. Prior to joining Ultra Clean, Mr. Mezhvinsky was Presidentpresident and Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer of Sieger Engineering, Inc. which he joined in 1982. Mr. Mezhvinsky holds the equivalent of a bachelor of science in Industrial Automation from College of Industrial Automation, Odessa, Ukraine. Mr. Mezhvinsky brings to our Board of Directors substantial operational experience. As the former president of Sieger Engineering, which is now a part of our company, he has a deep understanding of our competitors, suppliers, products and customers.

Emily M. Liggett has served as president and chief executive officer of NovaTorque, Inc., a manufacturer of high-efficiency electric motor systems, since 2009 and previously served as president and chief executive officer

of Apexon, Inc., a provider of supply chain optimization software solutions for global manufacturers, from 2004 to 2007. Ms. Liggett served as president and chief executive officer of Capstone Turbine Corporation (provider of microturbine systems for clean, continuous distributed energy generation) from 2002 to 2003 and, prior to that, held various management and executive roles at Raychem Corporation (acquired by Tyco International in 1999) from 1984 to 2001, including corporate vice president of Raychem and managing director of Tyco Ventures. Ms. Liggett has been a director of MTS Systems Corporation since 2010 and was a director of Immersion Corporation from 2005 to 2011. She also currently serves on the board of directors of the Purdue University School of Engineering Advisory Board. Ms. Liggett holds a bachelor of science in chemical engineering from Purdue University, a masters of science in engineering and manufacturing systems from Stanford University and a masters degree in business administration from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Ms. Liggett’s qualifications to serve on our Board of Directors include her chief executive officer and management experience in a variety of technical industrial companies. She has managed worldwide businesses, partnerships, and international joint ventures. She also has public company and private company operating and board experience, and expertise in strategy, operations, new product development, sales, marketing, and business development for highly technical businesses.

Thomas T. Edman has served as the Chief Executive Officer of TTM Technologies, Inc. since January 2014, as its President since January 2013 and as a member of its board of directors since September 2004. From early 2011 to December 2012, Mr. Edman served as Group Vice President and General Manager of the AKT Display Business Group, which is a division of Applied Materials Inc., a publicly held provider of nanomanufacturing technology solutions. From 2006 to 2011, Mr. Edman served as Corporate Vice President of Corporate Business Development of Applied Materials, Inc. Prior to that, Mr. Edman served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Applied Films Corporation from May 1998 until Applied Materials, Inc. acquired Applied Films Corporation in July 2006. From June 1996 until May 1998, Mr. Edman served as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Applied Films Corporation. From 1993 until joining Applied Films, Mr. Edman served as General Manager of the High Performance Materials Division of Marubeni Specialty Chemicals, Inc., a subsidiary of a major Japanese trading corporation. Mr. Edman previously served as Chairman and as a member of the board of directors of FlexTech, formerly the United States Display Consortium and the AeA (American Electronics Association). Mr. Edman holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in East Asian studies (Japan) from Yale University and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Edman was nominated to the board of directors because of his business acumen and experience in the technology industry, having served in numerous senior executive roles with sizeable technology companies, including as the chief executive officer of a public company. Mr. Edman also has extensive experience in Asia and with compensation-related matters.

Barbara V. Scherer has served as a member of the board of directors of NETGEAR, Inc., a global networking company that delivers innovative products to consumers, businesses and service providers, since August 2011 and as a member of the board of directors of ANSYS, Inc., a publicly traded engineering simulation software and services company, since April 2013. Ms. Scherer currently is a private investor. Ms. Scherer was Senior Vice President, finance and administration and chief financial officer of Plantronics, Inc., a global leader in audio communication devices for businesses and consumers, from 1998 to 2012. In this position, she was responsible for all aspects of the company’s financial management, as well as information technology, legal and investor relations. She was Vice President, finance and administration and chief financial officer of Plantronics from 1997 to 1998. Prior to Plantronics, Ms. Scherer held various executive management positions spanning eleven years in the disk drive industry, was an associate with The Boston Consulting Group, and was a member of the corporate finance team at ARCO in Los Angeles. From 2004 through 2010, she served as a director of Keithley Instruments, Inc., a publicly traded test and measurement company, until its acquisition by Danaher Corporation. She also has experience serving on the boards of non-profit organizations. Ms. Scherer received B.A. degrees from the University of California at Santa Barbara and her M.B.A. from the School of Management at Yale University. With a career spanning more than 30 years including 25 in senior financial leadership roles in the technology industry, Ms. Scherer provides the Company with practical and strategic insight into complex financial reporting and management issues as well as significant operational expertise.

There are no family relationships among any of our directors and executive officers. There are no arrangements or understandings between any of our directors and us pursuant to which such director was or is to be selected as a director or nominee. Information related to the compensation of our Board of Directors can be found under “––“—Director Compensation” below.

Board Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” each of the nominees to the Board of Directors set forth in this Proposal One.1.

Structure of Board of Directors and Corporate Governance Information

Director Independence.Independence. We are required to comply with the director independence rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) and the SEC. These rules require that the board of directors of a listed company be composed of a majority of independent directors and that the audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and corporate governance committeescommittee be composed solely of independent directors.

Our Board of Directors has determined that Susan Billat, John Chenaulteach of our directors and David T. ibnAledirector nominees are each independent in accordance with applicable NASDAQ and SEC rules.rules other than Messrs. Granger, Mezhvinsky and Scholhamer. Accordingly, a majority of our current Board of Directors is independent as required by NASDAQ rules and, upon election of each of our director nominees at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, a majority of our Board of Directors will be independent as required by NASDAQ rules.

Director Responsibilities.Responsibilities. We are governed by our Board of Directors and its various committees that meet throughout the year. Our Board of Directors currently consists of fiveseven directors. In accordance with our bylaws, our Board of Directors approved an increase in the size of the Board of Directors to seven directors to accommodate the appointment of our Chief Executive Officer, James P. Scholhamer, as a director in January 2015 and to eight directors in April 2015 to accommodate the election of our full slate of director nominees for the 2015 Annual meeting of Stockholders. After serving eleven terms on our Board of Directors, Susan H. Billat will not stand for reelection at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. During 2011,2014, there were fourseven meetings of our Board of Directors. We expect directors to attend and prepare for all meetings of the Board of Directors and the meetings of the committees on which they serve. Each of our directors attended more than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board of Directors and the committees on which he or she served during 2010.2014.

Board Leadership Structure.Structure. Our corporate governance guidelines allow for the flexibility to combine or separate the offices of chairman and the chief executive officer to best serve the interests of the Company and its stockholders. We currently have a board leadership structure under whichIn January 2015, Mr. Granger, our CEO also servesChairman, retired as our Chief Executive Officer but remained as our non-executive Chairman of our Board of Directors.the Board. Our Board of Directors believes thisour current board leadership structure is, and has been,to be an efficient and successful leadership model for the Company, promoting clear accountability and effective decision-making. Our Board of Directors believes that Mr. Granger has conducted, and will conduct his duties as non-executive Chairman effectively to date.effectively. Our Board of Directors recognizes that a different leadership model may be warranted under different circumstances. Accordingly, our Board of Directors periodically reviews its leadership structure.

The Board also continually reviews the need for effective independent oversight. Each member of each of our Board of Director’s standing committees is an independent director, and each independent director is actively involved in independent oversight. Our independent directors meet in executive session during each regularly scheduled quarterly meeting of our Board of Directors and periodically evaluate both our Chairman and our Chief Executive Officer. All directors have unrestricted access to management at all times and frequently communicate with the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and other members of management on a variety of topics. Given the above factors, our Board of Directors has historically determined that our leadership structure is

was appropriate and has not deemed it necessary or valuable to appoint an independent lead director. However, our Board of Directors anticipates appointing one of our independent directors as our lead independent director at this time.following the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Corporate Governance.Governance. Our Board of Directors has adopted corporate governance guidelines. These guidelines address items such as the qualifications and responsibilities of our directors and director candidates and the corporate governance policies and standards applicable to us in general. In addition, we have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that applies to all officers, directors and employees. Our corporate governance guidelines and our code of business conduct and ethics as well as the charters of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Audit Committee and Compensation Committee are available on our website at http://www.uct.com/uct.com/investors/corporate_governance.htm.corporate-governance/.

Communicating with our Board of Directors.Directors. Any stockholder wishing to communicate with our Board of Directors may send a letter to our Secretary at 26462 Corporate Avenue, Hayward, CA 94545. Communications intended specifically for non-employee directors should be sent to the attention of the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Annual Meeting Attendance.Attendance. Our Board of Directors has adopted a policy that all members should attend each annual meeting of stockholders when practical. All of our directors attended the 2011 annual meeting2014 Annual Meeting of stockholders.Stockholders.

Risk Oversight

Our Board of Directors plays an active role, as a whole and also at the committee level, in overseeing the management of our risks. Our Board of Directors regularly reviews reports from the management team on areas of material risk to the Company, including operational, financial, legal and strategic risks. Each of the committees of our Board of Directors also oversees the management of company risks that fall within the committee’s areas of responsibility. The Audit Committee periodically reviews risks associated with financial reporting and internal controls, as well as risks associated with liquidity, customer credit, inventory reserves and insurance coverage. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee assists the Board in overseeing risks associated with board organization, membership, and structure and corporate governance. The Compensation Committee assists the Board in reviewing whether any material risks arise from our compensation programs and in overseeing risks associated with succession planning for our executives.

Committees of our Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors has three principal committees. The following describes for each committee itscommittee’s current membership, the number of meetings held during 20112014 and its mission:

Audit Committee.Committee. Among other matters, the Audit Committee:

A copy of the Audit Committee’s charter is available on our website at http://www.uct.com/uct.com/investors/corporate_governance.htm.corporate-governance/.

The current members of the Audit Committee are John Chenault (chair), Susan H. Billat and David T. ibnAle. On the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, our Board of Directors expects that our Audit Committee will consist of Ms. Scherer (chair), Mr. Chenault and Mr. ibnAle following the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the committee satisfies both the SEC’s additional independence requirement for members of audit committees and the other requirements of NASDAQ for members of audit committees. The Board of Directors has also concluded that all memberseach member of the Audit Committee qualifyqualifies as an audit committee financial expert as defined by SEC rules and has the financial sophistication required by NASDAQ. The Audit Committee met fourfive times in 2010.2014.

Compensation Committee.Committee. Among other matters, our Compensation Committee:

A copy of the Compensation Committee’s charter is available on our website at www.uct.com/http://uct.com/investors/corporate_governance.htm. corporate-governance/. The Compensation Committee’s process for deliberations on executive compensation and its engagement of an outside compensation consultant is described below under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

As part of our oversight of our executive compensation program and in conjunction with the Compensation Committee, we consider the impact of our executive compensation program and the incentives created by different elements of the executive compensation program on our risk profile. In addition, we review all of our compensation policies and procedures, including the incentives that they create and factors that affect the likelihood of excessive risk taking, to determine whether they present a significant risk to the Company. Based on this review, we have concluded that our compensation policies and procedures are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The current members of the Compensation Committee are Susan H. Billat (chair), John Chenault and David T. ibnAle. On the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, our Board of Directors expects that our Compensation Committee will consist of Mr. ibnAle (chair), Mr. Edman and Ms. Liggett following the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Our Board of Directors has determined each member of the committee is independent as defined under NASDAQ and SEC rules. The Compensation Committee met foursix times in 2011.2014.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.Committee. Among other matters, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:

A copy of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s charter is available on our website at www.uct.com/http://uct.com/investors/corporate_governance.htm.corporate-governance/.

The current members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are David T. ibnAle (chair), Susan H. Billat and Susan Billat.Emily M. Liggett. On the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, our Board of Directors expects that our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consist of Ms. Liggett (chair), Mr. Edman and Mr. ibnAle following the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Our Board of Directors has determined that each current member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is independent as defined under NASDAQ. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met onceseven times in 2011.2014.

Consideration of Director Nominees

Director Qualifications.Qualifications. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chartercharter specifies the criteria applied to director nominees. Candidates for director nominees are reviewed in the context of the current composition of our Board of Directors, our operating requirements and the interests of our stockholders. In conducting its assessment, the committee considers issues of judgment, diversity, age, skills, background, experience and such other factors as it deems appropriate given the needs of the Company and our Board of Directors. Although we do not have a formal policy with regard to the consideration of diversity, when identifying and selecting director nominees, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also considers the impact a nominee would have in terms of increasing the diversity of our Board of Directors with respect to professional experience, skills, backgrounds, viewpoints and areas of expertise. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also considers the independence, financial literacy and financial expertise standards required by our committee charters and applicable laws, rules and regulations, and the ability of the candidate to devote the time and attention necessary to serve as a director and a committee member.

Identifying and Evaluating Nominees for Director.Director. In the event that vacancies are anticipated or otherwise arise, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (or, if the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is not comprised solely of independent directors, our independent directors) consider(s)considers various potential candidates for director. Candidates may come to the attention of the Nominating and Corporate

Governance Committee (or our independent directors) through current directors, professional search firms engaged by us, stockholders or other persons. Candidates are evaluated at regular or special meetings of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (or our Board of Directors)independent directors) and may be considered at any point during the year.

Stockholder Nominees.Nominees. Candidates for director recommended by stockholders will be considered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (or our independent directors). Such recommendations should include the candidate’s name, home and business contact information, detailed biographical data, relevant qualifications for membership on our Board of Directors, information regarding any relationships between the candidate and our Company within the last three years and a written indication by the recommended candidate of the candidate’s willingness to serve on our Board of Directors. Stockholder recommendations, with such accompanying information, should be sent to the attention of the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee at the address listed under “Information Concerning Solicitation and Voting––Voting—Contacting Ultra Clean.”

Stockholders also may nominate directors for election at our annual meeting of stockholders by following the provisions set forth in our bylaws. The deadline and procedures for stockholder nominations are disclosed elsewhere in this proxy statement under the caption “Information Concerning Solicitation and Voting––Voting—Deadline for Receipt of Stockholder Proposals.”

Director Compensation

Employee directors do not receive any additional compensation for their service on our Board of Directors.

For fiscal 2011,2014, each non-employee director was paid a $30,000$35,000 annual retainer fee, as well as, if applicable, a $12,000 annual fee for serving on the Audit Committee, a $5,000 annual fee per committee for serving on the Compensation and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, a $20,000 annual fee for serving as

chair of the Audit Committee (which includes the fee to serve on the Audit Committee) and a $10,000 annual fee for serving as chair of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees (which includes the fee to serve on each committee). In fiscal 2011,2014, on the date of our annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director was granted 7,5008,000 restricted stock awardsunits that fully vest on the earlier of (i) the day before the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and (ii) May 16, 2012. 21, 2015.

In 2011,February 2015, the Compensation Committee reviewed the number of shares of restricted stock awards to be granted to non-employee directors based on our average stock price and the median equity compensation levels at peer companies. In addition, in May 2011, the Compensation Committee granted Mr. Chenault a one-time award of 7,500 shares of restricted stock that became fully vested on the date of grant. This award represented the balance of Mr. Chenault’s initial equity grant for joining our Board of Directors in fiscal 2009, pursuant to our policy of providing an initial equity grant of 15,000 shares of restricted stock to new directors, that was not previously granted to Mr. Chenault.

In February 2012, the Compensation Committee recommended and the Board approved that, for fiscal 2012,2015, each non-employee director would receive a cash retainer and equity award consistent with that received for fiscal 2011,2014, to be effectivepaid/granted at the date of the 2012 annual meeting2015 Annual Meeting of stockholders.Stockholders. Annual fees for serving on the Board of Directors and on or as chair of committees were not changed. In addition, the Board determined that the Company will continue to pay the lease amount and insurance premiums due on the Company car Mr. Granger used as our Chief Executive Officer, from his retirement date through the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The following table sets forth compensation for our non-employee directors for fiscal 2011:2014:

Name		Fees Earned or Paid In Cash ($)				Stock Awards (1),  (2) ($)				Total ($)
Susan H. Billat(3)			62,000				64,080				126,080
John Chenault			60,000				64,080				124,080
David ibnAle(3)			62,000				64,080				126,080
Leonid Mezhvinsky			35,000				64,080				99,080
Emily M. Liggett			40,000				120,150				160,150

Mr. Granger is not included in the table above because he received no separate compensation for services as a director during 2011.2014. Mr. Granger retired as our Chief Executive Officer in January 2015 but remains as the Chairman of our Board of Directors. His compensation is set forth under “Executive Officer Compensation—Summary Compensation Table”.Table.” Mr. Scholhamer became a member of our Board of Directors in January 2015 and does not receive separate compensation for services as a director.

Stock Ownership GuidelinesGuidelines; Policy against Hedging Transactions and Pledges

The Board of Directors has adopted stock ownership guidelines for our directors to more closely align the interests of our directors with those of our stockholders. The guidelines were revised in February 2010 to provide that each director should hold at least 10,000 shares of our common stock, and that each director be allowed three years from the date such director joined our Board of Directors to accumulate such number of shares of our common stock. All of our directors currently meet our stock ownership guidelines.

The Company’s Insider Trading Policy provides that shares of Ultra Clean stock shall not be made subject to a hedge transaction or puts and calls. The Insider Trading Policy further prohibits any pledges of shares of Ultra Clean stock by our directors and executive officers.

Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions

Transactions with Management and Directors.Directors The wife of Bruce Weir, our Sr. Vice President of Engineering and one of our named executive officers, is the sole owner of Acorn Travel, Inc., our primary travel agency. We made payments for travel-related services, which include the cost of airplane tickets, to Acorn Travel for a total of $472,000 in the year ended December 30, 2011.

. The Company leases a facility from an entity controlled by Leonid Mezhvinsky, one of our directors. In the year ended December 30, 2011,26, 2014, we incurred rent and other expenses resulting from the lease of this facility of approximately $293,000.$297,000.

Related Person Transaction Policy. Our written Related Person Transaction Policy requires our Board of Directors or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to review and approve all related person transactions. Our directors and officers are required to promptly notify our Chief Compliance Officer of any transaction which potentially involves a related person. Our Board of Directors or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee then considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including without limitation the commercial reasonableness of the terms of the transaction, the benefit and perceived benefit, or lack thereof, to the Company, opportunity costs of alternate transactions, the materiality and character of the related person’s direct or indirect interest, and the actual or apparent conflict of interest of the related person. Our Board of Directors or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will not approve or ratify a related person transaction unless it has determined that, upon consideration of all relevant information, the transaction is in, or not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

PROPOSAL 2: RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF OUR INDEPENDENT

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee has appointed Deloitte & ToucheMoss Adams LLP (“Moss Adams”) to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2012.2015. We are asking you to ratify this appointment, although your ratification is not required. In the event of a majority vote against ratification, the Audit Committee may reconsider its selection. Even if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee may, in its discretion, direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if the Audit Committee determines that such a change would be in the Company’s and its stockholders’ best interests. A representative of each of Deloitte & Touche LLP and Moss Adams is expected to be present at the annual meeting of stockholders, will have the opportunity to make a statement if he/she desires to do so and is expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Dismissal of Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte)

During fiscal 2014, Deloitte served as our independent auditors and also provided tax services. On March 30, 2015, we dismissed Deloitte as our independent registered public accountant.

The report of Deloitte on our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 26, 2014 and December 27, 2013 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, and was not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

As it relates to the fiscal years ended December 26, 2014 and December 27, 2013, and through March 30, 2015, the effective date of Deloitte’s dismissal, (i) there were no disagreements (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions) between the company and Deloitte on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Deloitte would have caused Deloitte to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its report, and (ii) there were no “reportable events” (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

A representative of Deloitte & Touche LLP is expected to be present at the annual meeting of stockholders, will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desirehe/she desires to do so and areis expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Moss Adams LLP (“Moss Adams”)

On April 1, 2015, we appointed Moss Adams as the company’s independent registered public accounting firm to perform independent audit services beginning with fiscal year 2015. Through April 1, 2015, neither the company, nor anyone on its behalf, consulted Moss Adams regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered with respect to our consolidated financial statements, in any case where a written report or oral advice was provided to the company by Moss Adams that Moss Adams concluded was an important factor considered by the company in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was the subject of a disagreement (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions) or a “reportable event” (as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

A representative of Moss Adams is expected to be present at the annual meeting of stockholders, will have the opportunity to make a statement if he/she desires to do so and is expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Audit Fees and Tax Fees

Set forth below are the aggregate fees incurred for the professional services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, and their respective affiliates (collectively, “Deloitte & Touche”), in fiscal 20112014 and 2010.2013.

Audit fees consist of fees billed, or to be billed, for services rendered to us and our subsidiaries for the audit of our annual financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, reviews of our quarterly financial statements included in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and audit services provided in connection with other statutory and regulatory filings.

Tax fees consist of fees billed for professional services for assistance regarding worldwide transfer pricing analysis and documentation.

Preapproval Policy of Audit Committee of Services Performed by Independent Auditors

The Audit Committee’s policy requires that the committee preapprove audit and non-audit services to be provided by our independent auditors before the auditors are engaged to render services. The Audit Committee may delegate its authority to pre-approve services to one or more Audit Committee members; provided that such designees present any such approvals to the full Audit Committee at the next Audit Committee meeting.

All services described above provided by Deloitte & Touche were pre-approved in accordance with the Audit Committee’s pre-approval policies.

Board Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” ratification of the appointment of Deloitte & ToucheMoss Adams LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2012.2015.

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The following Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC nor shall this information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), each as amended, except to the extent that Ultra Clean specifically incorporates it by reference into such filing.

The Audit Committee serves in an oversight capacity and is not intended to be part of our operational or managerial decision-making process. Our management is responsible for preparing our consolidated financial statements, and our independent registered public accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP, is responsible for auditing those statements. The Audit Committee’s principal purpose is to monitor these processes.

The Audit Committee is currently composed of three directors, each of whom meets the requirements of applicable NASDAQ Stock Market and Securities and Exchange Commission rules for audit committee independence. The key responsibilities of our Audit Committee are set forth in our Audit Committee’s charter, which is available on our website at www.uct.com/http://uct.com/investors/corporate_governance.htm.corporate-governance/.

The Audit Committee regularly met and held discussions with management and Deloitte & Touche LLPour independent registered public accounting firm in 2011.2014. Management represented to the Audit Committee that Ultra Clean’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis, and the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the quarterly and annual earnings press releases and audited consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 201126, 2014 with management and Deloitte & Touche LLP.our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has also discussed with Deloitte & Touche LLPour independent registered public accounting firm matters required to be discussed by Statementthe statement on Auditing Standards No. 61 (Communication With Audit Committees),16, as amended, and rule 2-07 (communications with Audit Committee) of Regulation S-X.issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

The Audit Committee has discussed with Deloitte & Touche LLPour independent registered public accounting firm its independence from us and our management, including the matters, if any, in the written disclosures pursuant to applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding an independent accountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence. The Audit Committee also considered whether Deloitte & Touche LLP’sour independent registered public accounting firm’s provision of audit and non-audit services to us is compatible with maintaining the independence of Deloitte & Toucheour independent registered public accounting firm from us.

The Audit Committee discussed with our internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Compensation Committee meets with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of our internal controls and the overall quality of our financial reporting. To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, the law prohibits a publicly traded company from obtaining certain non-audit services from its independent audit firm. We obtain these services from other service providers as needed.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to our Board of Directors, and our Board of Directors approved, that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 2011,26, 2014, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Audit Committee has appointed Deloitte & ToucheMoss Adams LLP as our independent auditors for 2012.2015.

Members of the Audit Committee

John Chenault, Chair

Susan H. Billat

David T. ibnAle

PROPOSAL 3: ADVISORY VOTE APPROVING THE COMPENSATION

OF THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

This proposal required pursuant to section 14A of the Exchange Act, provides you with an opportunity to cast a non-binding advisory vote approving the fiscal 20112014 compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC in this proxy statement, including the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the compensation tables and other narrative executive compensation disclosures. Consistent with the non-binding advisory vote of our stockholders at our 2011 annual meeting, we will hold a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation annually until our next non-binding advisory vote on the frequency of stockholder advisory votes on executive compensation, which is required no later than our 2017 annual meetingAnnual Meeting of Stockholders. Although, as an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding on us or our Board of Directors, the Compensation Committee and our Board of Directors value the opinions of the stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions.

As described in detail under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” our executive compensation programs are designed to attract, motivate and retain our named executive officers, who are critical to our success. Under these programs, our named executive officers are rewarded for the achievement of specific short-term and long-term goals. We believe our 20112014 executive compensation is appropriate. Please see the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” beginning on page 1720 for additional details about our executive compensation philosophy and programs, including information about the fiscal 20112014 compensation of our named executive officers. This advisory vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation principles and practices and the fiscal 20112014 compensation of our named executive officers.

The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on this item will be required to approve, by an advisory vote, the compensation of our named executive officers. Abstentions will have the same effect as negative votes for this proposal.

Board Recommendation

Our Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the approval of the compensation of the named executive officers for fiscal 20112014 as disclosed pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC, (whichwhich disclosure includes the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” the compensation tables and other narrative executive compensation disclosures in this proxy statement).statement.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview of Compensation Program and Philosophy

Our compensation program is intended to meet three principal long-term objectives:

To meet these objectives, we have adopted the following overriding compensation policies:

Our Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) considers these policies in determining the appropriate allocation of long-term compensation, base salaries, annual bonus compensation and other benefits. Other considerations include our business objectives and environment, fiduciary and corporate responsibilities (including internal equity considerations and affordability), competitive practices and trends, and regulatory requirements. In determining the particular elements of compensation that will be used to implement our overall compensation policies, the Compensation Committee takes into consideration a number of factors related to corporate performance, as further described below, as well as competitive practices among our peer group.group and the practices of similar companies noted in industry surveys.

Fiscal 2014 Key Considerations

Similar to fiscal 2014, and as discussed further below under “—Process for Determining Executive Compensation,” we did not benchmark the compensation of our named executive officers for fiscal 2014 on an executive-by-executive basis against our peer group. In addition, the Compensation Committee determined not to engage an independent compensation consultant to review the competitiveness and structure of the Company’s 2014 cash and equity incentive programs or to provide the Compensation Committee with recommendations regarding changes to such plans in connection with the Compensation Committee’s decisions on executive compensation for fiscal 2014. In making this determination, the Compensation Committee considered that it engaged an independent compensation consultant for such purpose in 2013. Moreover, the Compensation Committee utilized data from industry surveys on executive compensation to assist it in its determination of executive compensation for fiscal 2014.

Our fiscal 20112014 compensation decisions, on an aggregate basis, primarily reflected the state of our business (and in particular, the state of the semiconductor industry), our share price, and the uncertainty instate of the global economy during fiscal 2011. Our financial results for fiscal years 2011 and 2010 reflected significantly increasedthe demand for our products over fiscal 2009, a year when demand in our industry was significantly reduced due to extremely unfavorable global economic conditions. However, in setting fiscal 2011 compensation, the Committee recognized that the recovery in the global economy is ongoing, and thatindustries we are still exposed to risks associated with global economic fluctuations and uncertainties. Moreover, in assessing compensation increasesserved during fiscal 2014. Our sales were $514.0 million for fiscal 2011,2014, representing an increase of 15.8% compared to $444.0 million in sales for fiscal 2013. Our gross profit also improved in fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013, as did our stock price, which, at the time of the

Compensation Committee’s compensation deliberations for 2014 executive compensation, was approximately 85% higher than the Company’s average stock price in 2013. Overall, our Compensation Committee recognizedbelieves that our results and stock price for fiscal 2014 reflect an improvement in overall business conditions, particularly in the semiconductor industry, from 2013 and from the recent, extended period of depressed demand and uncertainty. Based on the above, and as reflected in the “Summary Compensation Table” below, our Compensation Committee determined to increase fiscal 2014 compensation for our named executive officers received substantial total compensation increases in fiscal 2010 as compared to fiscal 2009. In addition,2013.

On an individual basis, our fiscal 2014 compensation decisions primarily reflected the importance of our top executives (i.e., our chief executive officer, our executive vice president and chief financial officer and our senior vice president of Asia) to our business and their roles in the improvement in the Company’s operating and stock price performance during fiscal 2011,2014. The Compensation Committee considers these executives, particularly our operating results, as reportedchief executive officer and executive vice president and chief financial officer, to be primarily responsible for the improvement in our annual report on Form 10-K,overall performance. Moreover, the Compensation Committee recognized that these executives were relatively consistent between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2010, with sales of $452.6 million in fiscal 2011 as compared to sales of $443.1 million in fiscal 2010, and our average share price was approximately 7% lowerprimary strategic decision makers during fiscal 2011 as compared to fiscal 2010. Based on these factors, the Committee determined to keep our target executive compensation relatively consistent2014.

Consistent with fiscal 2010, which resulted in total target executive compensation for fiscal 2011 below the 50^th percentile and, in the judgment of the Committee, generally more competitive with the 25^th percentileprior years, each of our peer group. However, our incentive bonus plan provides ournamed executive officers were eligible for increased cash incentive compensation and earned performance-based equity awards based on our results of operations, thus tying compensation very closely with the opportunity to receive more than their target compensation if our operating results exceed our expectations, andperformance. The Compensation Committee also considers that the value to our executive officers of their long-term equity incentive awards increases with our sharestock price, providing our executives with further opportunity to increase the value of the compensation they ultimately realize, while aligning their incentives more closely with stockholder value. The Committee thus determined that compensation for fiscal 2011 below the 50^th percentile would not materially impact our competitiveness for executive talent or our ability to retain our executive officers.

In addition, in March 2011, we hired Dr. Gino Addiego as our president and chief operating officer. Dr. Addiego was one of our named executive officers for fiscal 2011. Pursuant to Dr. Addiego’s offer letter approved by the Committee, the Company agreed to pay Dr. Addiego an annual base salary of $380,000, with an annual target bonus equal to 75% of his base salary, and to grant him an award of 240,000 restricted stock units that vests in three equal installments on the second, third and fourth anniversaries of the grant, subject to the terms and conditions of our Stock Incentive Plan. Dr. Addiego is also eligible for certain severance and change in control benefits, as described under “—Post-Termination Arrangements” below. Dr. Addiego’s compensation was based on negotiations between us and Dr. Addiego, and was not benchmarked against our peer group for fiscal 2011.Stockholder Votes

At our 20112014 annual meeting of stockholders, the stockholders approved our non-binding advisory vote on our fiscal 2013 executive compensation program (“say-on-pay”). After considering our say-on-pay voting results compensation consultant advice and other factors addressed in the followingsubsequent discussion, the Compensation Committee determined not to make changes to our executive compensation policies and practices as a result of the vote. TheAt our fiscal 2011 annual meeting of stockholders, alsoa majority of the stockholders voted to have the non-binding say-on-pay advisory vote appear annually in our proxy statement. Our Board of Directors considered the results of the vote and agreed with the results. Therefore, we are including the non-binding say-on-pay advisory vote on our executive compensation in this year’s proxy, and will have annual votes at least until the next stockholder vote on frequency. Executive compensation decisions for fiscal 20112014 and other details are discussed below in this compensation discussion and analysis.

Process for Determining Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee engaged Radford Surveys + Consulting (“Radford”) as its outside compensation consultantmeets with our chief executive officer, who was Mr. Granger in fiscal 2011 to assist in creating and administering our compensation policies. This consultant advised the Committee on all of the principal aspects of executive compensation, including base salaries, annual and long-term incentives and perquisites, as well as other management benefits policies for fiscal 2011. The consultant advised the Committee on the designation of peer group companies, and the Committee approved the final list of peer group companies. The consultant attended meetings of the Committee regarding executive compensation and also communicated with the Committee outside of meetings. The consultant reported to the Committee rather than to management, although the consultant met with management from time to time for purposes of gathering information on proposals that management made or may make to the Committee. The Committee has the authority to replace the compensation consultant or hire additional consultants at any time.

The Committee also meets with Mr. Granger2014, and other executives, as necessary, to obtain recommendations with respect to Company compensation programs, practices and packages. Mr. GrangerThe chief executive officer makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee on executive performance, base salary, bonus targets and equity compensation for the executive team and other employees, other than himself. Although the Compensation Committee considers management’s recommendations with respect to executive compensation, the Compensation Committee makes all final decisions on executive compensation matters.

The Committee has also typically sought input from its independent compensation consultant prior to making any final determinations.

Mr. Grangerchief executive officer attends most of the Compensation Committee’s meetings, but the Compensation Committee also holds executive sessions not attended by any members of management or non-independent directors. The Compensation Committee deliberates and makes decisions with respect to Mr. Granger’s performance and compensation without himthe chief executive officer and the Company’s other executives present. The Compensation Committee has the ultimate authority to make decisions with respect to the compensation of our named executive officers, but may, if it chooses, delegate some of its responsibilities to subcommittees. The

Compensation Committee has not in the past delegated authority with respect to the compensation of executive officers. The Compensation Committee has delegated to Mr. Grangerthe chief executive officer the authority to grant equity awards to employees below the level of corporate vice president under guidelines approved by the Compensation Committee and to make salary adjustments and short-term bonus decisions for employees (other than certainexecutive officers) under guidelines approved by the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee also periodically seeks input from independent compensation consultants prior to making determinations on executive compensation, though no such consultant was engaged for such purpose with respect to fiscal 2014 compensation. The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to retain and terminate independent legal, financial, accounting or other advisors as it determines necessary to carry out its duties, without conferring with or obtaining the approval of management or the full Board of Directors, including the sole authority to approve the fees and other retention terms of any such firm. The Compensation Committee also utilizes data from industry surveys on executive compensation to assist it in its determination of executive compensation.

Elements of Compensation

The following are the primary elements of our executive compensation program:

We have selected these elements because each is considered useful and/or necessary to meet one or more of the principal objectives of our compensation policy. For example, base salary and bonus target percentagepercentages are set with the goal of attracting employees and adequately compensating and rewarding them for their individual performance, level of responsibility, time spent with the Company and the Company’s annual financial results, while our equity programs are geared toward providing incentive and reward for the achievement of long-term business objectives and retaining key talent. We believe that these elements of compensation, when combined, are effective, and will continue to be effective, in achieving the objectives of our compensation program.

The Compensation Committee reviews base salary, cash incentive programs and long-term incentive programs on at least an annual basis. Other programs are reviewed from time to time to ensure that benefit levels remain competitive but are not included in the annual determination of an executive’s compensation package. In setting compensation levels for a particular executive, the Compensation Committee takes into consideration the proposed compensation package as a whole and each element individually, as well as the executive’s past and expected future contributions to our business.

Base Salary and Annual Incentive Bonus

Base salaries and cash bonuses are a significant portion ofAlthough we did not benchmark our executive compensation package. We believe this helps us remain competitive in attracting and retaining executive talent. Bonuses also are paid in order to motivate officers to achieve the Company’s business goals. The Committee has historically determined each officer’s target total annual cash compensation (salary and bonuses) after reviewing similar compensation information from a group of peer companies. The selectedfor fiscal 2014 against our peer group, for fiscal 2011 included a broad range of companies in the high technology and EMS industries with whom we compete for executive talent. For fiscal 2011, the Committee considered major high technology and EMS competitors for executive talent and companies of at least a similar size and scope to us, as measured by market capitalization, revenue, net income and total stockholder return. The Committee has annually reviewed and determined the peer group companies. For fiscal 2011, the peer group consisted of the following companies:

Data on the compensation practices of this peer group generally is gathered through searches of publicly available information, including publicly available databases. Because publicly available information does not typically include information regarding target cash compensation, we also relied upon a compensation survey prepared by Radford, the Committee’s outside consultant, to benchmark target cash compensation levels against the above peer group. Peer group data is gathered with respect to base salary, bonus targets, equity awards and perquisites, as well as other management benefits policies.

Ourour long-term goal ishas been to target total compensation, including base salaries, cash incentive awards and equity awards near the 50^th50th percentile among theour peer group. In achievingTo achieve this, our goal ishas been to allocate total compensation such that cash compensation (including base pay and annual bonus) falls between the 25^th25th and 50^th50th percentile among the peer group, and time and performance based equity awards, which provide our executives with long-term incentives, fall between the 50^th50th and 75^th75th percentile of the peer group. However,group, consistent with our pay-for-performance objectives and focusing on creation of long-term stockholder value. Notwithstanding these long-term compensation objectives, the Compensation Committee considers uncertainty in the macro-economy and cyclicality in the industries we serve, among other factors, in determining compensation packages for our executive officers, and in recent years, these considerations have resulted in compensation that our Compensation Committee believed were below our long-term target percentiles within our peer group. In

addition, the Compensation Committee has considered our stock price, which was relatively depressed in recent years, in determining to grant equity incentive awards that the Compensation Committee believed werelower-than-market in terms of value in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, so as to avoid excess dilution and conserve the number of shares available for future grant under our stock incentive plan. At the time our Compensation Committee determined fiscal 2014 executive compensation, our stock price was significantly higher than our stock price for the corresponding period in fiscal 2013, contributing to the increase in the grant date fair value of our equity awards to our named executive officers in fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013.

Cash Compensation

Base salaries and cash bonuses are a significant portion of our executive compensation package. We believe these help us remain competitive in attracting and retaining executive talent. Bonuses also are paid in order to motivate officers to achieve our business goals. The Compensation Committee also considers other factors such as job performance, responsibilities, skill set, prior experience, the executive’s time in his or her position and/or with the Company, internal consistency regarding pay levels for similar positions or skill levels within the Company, and external pressures to attract and retain talent, and market conditions generally. Positioning cash compensation below the 50^th percentile of peer companies combined with targeting total compensation (including equity) near the 50^th percentile, and therefore providing higher incentive compensation opportunity, promotes pay for performance that is balanced over the short and long term while controlling cash and fixed costs, rewarding goal achievement and allowing total compensation to be more competitive as a whole.talent. In setting executive compensation, including the performance goals upon which certain components of our executive compensation is based, the Compensation Committee also takes into account of the cyclical nature of our business and the state of our industry and the economy in general. Notwithstanding our long-term compensation goals and the improvement in our results of operation and share price in fiscal years 2011 and 2010 compared to fiscal 2009, the Committee recognized that there was continued uncertainty in the global economy in setting fiscal 2011 compensation, and thus the Committee determined an appropriate level of total compensation for our named executive officers for fiscal 2011 that was generally below the 50^th percentile of our peer group.

Base Salaries.SalariesThe. In fiscal 2014, the Compensation Committee generally reviews salary levels each year in the context of peer group data, industry surveys and our compensation philosophy and sets salaries that are appropriatedetermined to achieve the desired market positioning for each executive. As reflected in the summary compensation table below, base salary increases for our named executive officers, other than our recently hired president and chief operating officer, ranged from 2.5% for our chief executive officer to 6.6% for our senior vice president of sales. These increases are consistent with our overall compensation philosophy to set base salaries for our named executive officers at levels at or below the 50^th percentile for comparable positions at peer companies. Even after the increases,increase base salaries for our chief executive officer by approximately 3.5%, our executive vice president and chief financial officer by approximately 4%, our senior vice president of salesAsia by approximately 5%, our senior vice president of global material and supply chain management by 3%, our senior vice president of engineering were belowby 2%, and our senior vice president of global account management by 2%, each effective as of June 1, 2014. In determining these increases, the 25^thpercentile of our peer group for fiscal 2011, and the base salary for our chief financial officer approximated the 50^th percentile, due toCompensation Committee considered the significance of his rolethe roles of these executives in our overall management for fiscal 20112014 and the Compensation Committee’s determination of the correlation of histheir responsibilities with our overall corporate operating performance.

While the Compensation Committee did not benchmark base against a peer group for fiscal 2014, in determining to increase base salaries for fiscal 2014, the Compensation Committee considered industry survey data on executive compensation for similarly situated executives. Overall, the Compensation Committee determined that the base salary increases were modest in comparison to our peer group yetconsistent with the Company’s overall compensation objectives and appropriate to retain our executives at a point in time at which the Company continued to see some recovery in overall business conditions from a period of continued economicdepressed demand and uncertainty. Dr. Addiego, our president and chief operating officer, was hired during fiscal 2011 at a base salary of $380,000, which was pro rated over the portion of the year he served with us. Dr. Addiego’s base salary was approved by the Committee based on negotiation with Dr. Addiego and was not benchmarked to our peer group for fiscal 2011.

Incentive Bonuses.Our named executive officers, other than our senior vice president of sales, participate in our Management Bonus Plan which awards the named executive officersparticipants with cash incentives in the event we achieve specified levels of operating income. The Committee has reviewed bonus targets at least annuallyAll of the Company’s employees with a title of director and above are eligible to participate in light of peer group and industry data and our financial results.the Management Bonus Plan. In fiscal 2011,2014, we paid cash incentive bonuses on the basis of the quarterly achievement of target operating income for fiscal 2011,2014, which targets were unchanged from the fiscal 2013 achievement levels, as follows:set forth in the table below. For fiscal 2014, for purposes of our Management Bonus Plan, operating income refers to operating income calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, but excluding the non-cash amortization costs relating to our acquisition of AIT in fiscal 2012. In addition, during fiscal 2014, for purposes of determining achievement levels under the Management Bonus Plan for fiscal 2014, our Compensation Committee determined to exclude from the calculation of operating income the impact on the Company’s results associated with the bankruptcy of one of the Company’s customers, GT Advanced Technologies (“GTAT”), which the Compensation Committee determined was out of the control of management.

Fiscal 2014 Achievement Levels
Operating Income as a Percentage of Revenue		Percentage of Operating Income Paid Under the Management Bonus Plan
1.00%		0.00%
2.00%		0.00%
3.00%*		3.00%
4.00%		5.00%
5.00%		6.00%
6.00%		6.20%
7.00%		6.50%
8.00%		7.50%
9.00%		8.50%
10.00%		9.00%
11.00%		9.00%

Bonuses under the Management Bonus Plan are calculated and paid on a quarterly basis.basis, which we believe has a positive effect on employee morale. Each quarter, we calculate the total available pool of cash incentive bonuses using the “Percentage of Operating Income Distributed as Cash Incentive Compensation” per the tableas discussed above. For the four quarters of fiscal 2011,2014, our aggregate quarterly bonuses were paid based on the following:

Once the available pool is determined for a given fiscal quarter as described above, the pool is then allocated among the participants in the plan, including our participating named executive officers, in accordance with each individual participant’s target bonus percentage, which is calculated as a percentage of base salary. For fiscal 2011,2014, the target bonus percentages and actual paid bonuses as a percentage of base salary for each of our named executive officers waswere as follows:

Named Executive Officer		Target Bonus as a Percentage of Base Salary								Actual Bonus as  a Percentage of Base Salary
		2014				2013				2014
Clarence L. Granger			100	%			100	%			98	%
Kevin C. Eichler			70	%			70	%			69	%
Mark G. Bingaman			40	%			40	%			40	%
Lavi A. Lev			40	%			40	%			40	%
Bruce C. Wier			40	%			40	%			37	%

If the available pool is not sufficient to allocate each participant theira bonus equal to his or her target bonus percentage multiplied by his or her base salary for the quarter (“full payout”), then the available pool is allocated

among each participant in the plan based on the ratio of that participant’s target bonusfull payout to the aggregate of target bonusesfull payouts for all participants. If the available pool exceeds the amount necessary to allocate each participant their target bonus,his or her full payout, then the excess is allocated among participants in the same manner as shortfalls. The maximum allowable bonus under the planfor any quarter is two times a participant’s target annual bonus.full payout amount.

The Compensation Committee believes that operating income is the most appropriate metric upon which to base cash incentive bonuses due to the fact that it is highly correlated with both revenue growth and profitability, as well as being the measure of operating results for which our executives can be held most accountable, and thus is the most effective measure of their overall performance. The Compensation Committee also believes operating income to be an appropriate metric based on its historical correlation with our public share price.

The Compensation Committee reviews the Management Bonus Plan achievement levels annually, considering projected operating results under the Company’s annual operating plan and other factors discussed below.

Target bonuses as a percentage of base salarybonus percentages are reviewed and approved on an annual basis for each named executive officer and established based on each named executive officer’s role and level of responsibility within the organization. For example, the Compensation Committee determined that a 100% target was appropriate for Mr. Granger (up fromand a 70% for fiscal 2010) due to his role in steering our company as our chief executive officer, and in order to more closely align Mr. Granger’s total target cash compensation with the 25^th percentile of our peer group. The targetwas appropriate for Mr. Eichler was set at 70% (up from 60% for(each consistent with fiscal 2010), which is between the 50^th2013 and 75^th percentile of our peer group,2012) due to the significance of his roletheir roles in our overall management for fiscal 20112014, their status as our most senior executives and the Compensation Committee’s determination of the correlation of histheir responsibilities with our overall corporate operating performance. Dr. Addiego’sThe Compensation Committee also set the bonus target percentages of Mr. Lev, Mr. Wier and Mr. Bingaman at levels consistent with the prior year. In making this determination, the Compensation Committee noted that the target bonus was set at 75%percentages for the other named executive officers were unchanged from the prior year.

Target bonus percentages are used primarily to allocate the available bonus pool under our Management Bonus Plan among the plan participants each quarter, and do not necessarily reflect the amount of his base salary, which was determined by the Committee based on negotiations with Dr. Addiego and to reflect Dr. Addiego’s responsibilitiesbonuses as our second most senior executive. Dr. Addiego was hired after our peer group review and his incentive compensation was not benchmarked against our peers for fiscal 2011. Overall, the Committee set target bonuses at a significant proportionpercentage of base salary in orderwe are targeting for our named executive officers. The Compensation Committee approves the achievement levels and target bonus percentages after considering the potential bonus pool available under the Management Bonus Plan at various levels of operating performance.

Overall, the Compensation Committee seeks to tie a significant proportion of cash compensation to performance, while recognizingbalancing our improved financial results and some continued recovery in business conditions with the cyclical nature of our business and the risk to oura business environment that was still recovering from an extended period of the continued macro-economiceconomic and industry uncertainty. Although total cash compensation was below the 25^th percentile for each named executive officer whose compensation we benchmarked, other than our chief financial officer,The Compensation Committee also recognized that the Management Bonus Plan provides increased cash payments to suchour executives if our Company achieveswe achieve results above targets, providing our executives an opportunity to achieve higher cash compensation for performance above expectations.

We intend the performance goals to be challenging and to reflect strong corporate performance. To help achieve our goal of retaining key talent, an executive must remain an employee through the time the bonus is paid in order to be eligible for any bonus under the Management Bonus Plan.

Generally, bonuses are paid under our Management Bonus Plan only if the performance goals described above, which the Compensation Committee sets at the beginning of the fiscal year, are achieved, although the Compensation Committee retains the ability to revise performance measures during the year or to adjust bonuses based on extraordinary events or individual performance. BonusesConsistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy, bonuses for fiscal 20112014 were paid out in accordance with the performance goals described above, without adjustment.

Ms. Hayward, our senior vice president of sales, is paid cash incentive compensation through our Sales Incentive Plan rather than our Management Bonus Plan. Ms. Hayward earns sales commissions based on our achievement of sales and operating margins. The Committee determined that sales and operating margins, rather than operating income, were the most appropriate metrics upon which to measure Ms. Hayward’s performance, and are also consistent with our objective to grow our business while simultaneously increasing profitability. The Committee determinedadjustment, except that the performance targets underimpact of the Sales Incentive Plan were challenging but achievable with strong performance byGTAT bankruptcy was excluded. Actual bonuses for our sales team for fiscal 2011, as shown by Ms. Hayward’s cash incentive compensation in fiscal 2011 and 2010, which increased significantly as our revenue and profitability increased as compared to fiscal 2009. Ms. Hayward’s sales and operating margin goals were set to target a commission level for fiscal 2011,named executive officers as a percentage of base salary consistent withfor 2014 were higher than for 2013 primarily due to our improved operating results in fiscal 2010 and which approximates the 25^th percentile of our peer group. Ms. Hayward’s actual cash incentive compensation for fiscal 2011 was also consistent with fiscal 2010 based on our sales and operating margin performance for fiscal 2011 being generally consistent with fiscal 2010, as reflected in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2011.2014. See “Summary Compensation Table” below.

Long-Term IncentiveEquity Compensation

Our equity compensation program is intended to align the interests of our officers with those of our stockholders by creating an incentive for our officers to maximize stockholder value. The equity compensation program also is designed to encourage our officers to remain employed with us in a very competitive labor market. We have historically targeted the initial grant date fair value of equity awards to be in the 50^th to 75^th percentile of the peer group described above, based on information gathered from publicly available sources supplemented by survey data provided by Radford. Our long-term philosophy, as stated earlier, is to target lower than median base salaries and target bonus rates compared to our peer group, resulting in lower than median total cash compensation, but then offset lower cash compensation by targeting equity awards at a higher percentile of the peer group. This philosophy is consistent with our pay for performance practice and focuses total executive compensation on the creation of long-term stockholder value. The Compensation Committee regularly monitors the changes in the business environment in which we operate and periodically reviews changes to our equity compensation program to help us meet our goals, which include the achievement of long-term stockholder value.

Types of Equity AwardsAwards.. We provide long-term equity incentive compensation through awards of stock options and/or restricted stock units.

In fiscal 2011,2014, consistent with recent years, we granted our named executive officers restricted stock units, or RSUs, which we believe are effective in retaining and motivating employees because they provide a predictable, tangible value to employees while also serving as an incentive to increase the value of our stock. Restricted stock unitsRSUs are also an efficient way for us to reduce the dilutive effects of equity awards. We grant both time-based and performance-based restricted stock unitsRSUs to our executive officers. The Compensation Committee believes this combination provides a balance between awards that provide high incentive value (in the form of performance units,performance-based RSUs, which will only vest if we meet performance criteria combined with service requirements) and awards that provide high retention value (in the form of time-based restricted stock units,RSUs, which will have at least some value over time while imposing continued service requirements, and allowingrequiring time-based vesting of the earned performance units earned)units).

The number of equity awards the Compensation Committee grantsgranted to each executive officer isin fiscal 2014 was determined based on a variety of factors, including market data collected regarding the equity grant ranges for the peer companies listed above, industry surveys and our long-term goal to award grants between the 50th to 75th percentile of this group, as well as the performance evaluation of each executive by Mr. Granger and the Committee’s performance evaluation of Mr. Granger. Mr. Granger evaluates the performance of each member of the executive team that reports to him based on a number of factors, including the individual’s accomplishments during the prior fiscal year and over the course of his or her service, how effectively the individual reflects Company values, and the feedback regarding the executive from other employees who have an interest in or are affected by the executive’s job performance.

factors. In deciding the awards for fiscal 2011,2014, the Compensation Committee (in consultation with Mr. Granger) considered the above factors, as well as the impacteach individual executive’s job performance, but primarily his or her level of job responsibility. The Compensation Committee also considered that we had seen some continued uncertaintyrecovery in the macro-economyoverall business conditions and the cyclical nature ofan improved stock price from our business.average stock price over fiscal 2013 and 2012. Mr. Granger and the Compensation Committee discussed the use of long-term equity awards as a means to retain and incentivize executives as well as our long-term, overall target of providing total compensation competitive with the 50^th percentile of our peer group.targets. Following such discussion, the Compensation Committee decided to grant additional long-term equity awards to named executives officers. However,officers as noted above,follows:

The number of RSUs granted to Messrs. Granger, Eichler and Lev increased in fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013, primarily due to the continued uncertaintyCompensation Committee’s recognition of each such officer’s role in the macro-economy,improvement in our operating results and stock price during fiscal 2013, the Committee determined to grant equity awardssignificance of their roles in our overall management for fiscal 2011 that2014, and the Committee determined were competitiveCompensation Committee’s determination of the correlation of their responsibilities with our overall corporate operating performance, as well as their anticipated increased responsibilities given the 25^th to 50^th percentiledeparture of our peer group,former President and at amounts lower thanChief Operating Officer announced in February of 2014. The grant date fair value of fiscal 2010, such that our total compensation remained below the 50^th percentile of our peer group for each of2014 RSUs granted to our named executive officers other than Dr. Addiego. Thealso increased as compared to fiscal 2013 grants, primarily due to the increase in the number of equity awards granted to each named executive officer was based on the subjective judgment of the Committee, after considering each named executive officer’s level of responsibility within the organization. Dr. Addiego’s equity award for fiscal 2011 represents his initial equity award upon joining us in March 2011, and was determined by the Committee based on negotiations with Dr. Addiego. The Committee determined that Dr. Addiego’s initial equity grant was appropriate to recruit an executive of Dr. Addiego’s caliber and to recognize his responsibilitiesgrants as described above, as well as our second most senior executive.increased stock price.

Dr. Addiego was hired after our peer group review was complete and his equity award was not benchmarked against our peers for fiscal 2011. The equity awards granted during fiscal 20112014 to our named executive officers are set forth in detail under “Grants of Plan-Based Awards” below. Other than for Dr. Addiego, all equity awardsAll time-based RSUs granted to our named executive officers in fiscal 2011, including awards of2014, and all performance-based RSUs earned upon achievement ofbased on fiscal 2014 performance, milestones, vest over a period of 3 years from the grant date with one-third of each award vesting at the end of each year during the vesting period. Dr. Addiego’s initial equity award vests as to one-third of the shares subject to the award each year, beginning on the second anniversary of the date of grantin equal annual installments.

In allocating equity awards between time-based and performance-based awards, the Compensation Committee considered each named executive officer’s level of responsibility, and the relationship between that named executive officer’s performance and our public share price. The Compensation Committee determined that 50 percent of the equity awards to our chief executive officer and executive vice president and chief financial officer would consist of performance-based awards because their roles focus more on overall corporate performance, and 25 percent of the equity awards to our other named executive officers would consist of performance-based awards. Performance-based awards granted in fiscal 20112014 to our named executive officers are earned according to the following performance criteria:criteria. For fiscal 2014, for purposes of our performance-based awards, operating income is calculated consistent with our Management Bonus Plan. Consistent with our Management Bonus Plan, for purposes of determining achievement levels for performance-based RSUs for fiscal 2014 grants, the impact on the Company’s results associated with the GTAT bankruptcy were excluded as an extraordinary event out of the control of our management.

The Compensation Committee determined, based on the above,our actual results for fiscal 2013, that 65%91% of the performance-based awards granted to our named executive officers in fiscal 20112014 were earned in 2011, subject to continued time-based vesting as described above.earned. The remaining 9% of such performance-based awards for each applicable executive officer were cancelled.

Grant Practices. We have implemented procedures to regularize our equity award grant process, such as making new hire grants and annual executive grants on the same day each month. The Compensation Committee has not granted, nor does it intend in the future to grant, equity compensation awards to executives in anticipation of the release of material nonpublic information that is likely to result in changes to the price of our common stock, such as a significant positive or negative earnings announcement. Similarly, the Compensation Committee has not timed, nor does it intend in the future to time, the release of material nonpublic information based on equity award grant dates. Because our equity awards typically vest over multiple years, we believe recipients are motivated to see our stock price rise in the long-term rather than benefit from an immediate but short-term increase in the price of our stock following a grant.

Other Benefit Plans

Deferred Compensation. We maintain a non-qualified deferred compensation plan, which allows eligible employees, including executive officers and directors, to voluntarily defer receipt of the portion of his/her salary above a specified amount and all or a portion of a bonus payment until the date or dates elected by the participant, thereby allowing the participating employee to defer taxation on such amounts. This plan gives highly compensated employees the opportunity to defer more compensation than they would otherwise be permitted to defer under a tax-qualified retirement plan, such as our 401(k) plan. We believe that deferred compensation is a competitive practice to enable us to attract and retain top talent. We do not make matching or other employer contributions to the deferred compensation plan because we believe the deferral opportunity is enough of a benefit on its own.

Executive Perquisites.Perquisites. In addition to health care coverage that is generally available to our other employees, our executive officers are eligible for annual physical examinations more extensive than under the Company’s standard plans. Mr. GrangerOur Chief Executive Officer and employees in sales and marketing also receivereceived a car allowance. Because Mr. Lev relocated to Singapore to serve as our senior vice president of Asia, we agreed to provide

Mr. Lev with a housing and car allowance. In addition, we agreed to make Mr. Lev whole for any income taxes for which he is responsible above that which he would be responsible for if he received a comparable salary as a resident the United States. No such tax equalization payments were made to Mr. Lev for fiscal 2014. See “—Summary Compensation Table” below for more information.

Other BenefitsBenefits.. We also offer a number of other benefits to the executive officers pursuant to benefit programs that provide for broad-based employee participation. For example, our retirement plan is a tax-qualified 401(k) plan, which is a broad-based employee plan. Under the 401(k) plan, all participating employees (including executive officers) are eligible to receive limited matching contributions that are subject to vesting over time.

The main objectives of our benefits programs are to give our employees access to quality healthcare, financial protection from unforeseen events, assistance in achieving retirement financial goals, enhanced health and productivity and to provide support for global workforce mobility, in full compliance with applicable legal requirements. These generally available benefits typically do not specifically factor into decisions regarding an individual executive’s total compensation or equity award package.

Post-Termination Arrangements

Our post-termination arrangements are described in this proxy statement below. We believe the severance benefits under these agreements or policies are reasonable in amount, and provide a protection to key executive officers who would be likely to receive similar benefits from our competitors. The Compensation Committee reviews the potential costs and triggering events of employment and severance agreements and policies before approving them and will continue to consider appropriate and reasonable measures to encourage retention.

Accounting and Tax Considerations

In designing its compensation programs, the Compensation Committee generally considers the accounting and tax effects as well as direct costs. For example, we intend to limit the accounting expense for our equity compensation programs in an amount determined by the Compensation Committee from time to time. When determining how to apportion between differing elements of compensation, the goal is to meet our compensation objectives while maintaining cost neutrality. For example, if we increase benefits under one program resulting in higher compensation expense, we may seek to decrease costs under another program based on our determination of the affordability level. We recognize a charge to earnings for accounting purposes when equity awards are granted. The Compensation Committee considers the impact to dilution and overhang when making decisions pertaining to equity instruments.

We do not require executive compensation to be tax deductible for the Company, but instead balance the cost and benefits of tax deductibility to comply with our executive compensation goals.

Report of the Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, which appears in this proxy statement, with the management of Ultra Clean.Clean Holdings, Inc. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in Ultra Clean’sClean Holding, Inc.’s proxy statement.

Members of the Compensation Committee

Susan H. Billat, Chair

John Chenault

David T. ibnAle

Summary Compensation Table

The following table shows compensation information for the three most recently completed fiscal years for our principal executive officer, our principal financial officer and our other three most highly compensated executive officers as of December 30, 201126, 2014 (collectively, our “named executive officers”):

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table shows all plan-based awards granted to the named executive officers during fiscal 2011:2014:

Outstanding Equity Awards

The following table shows all outstanding equity awards held by the named executive officers as of December 30, 2011:26, 2014: