s5 logo

logoMipSemel

Corporate Consulting

{tab Case 1}

The corporate headquarters of a major international company recognized the need to better protect its building against blasts. Discussions with suppliers of protective glass and laminate resulted in a multi-million dollar proposal to protect all 28 floors of its building which has a fully glazed exterior.

Our team of experts were commissioned to undertake a Threat & Risk Analysis and concluded that by implementing strict access control to the underground car park, the threat from a major blast could be limited to outside the building. Furthermore, the road layout and the wider base of the building indicated that the extent of blast damage would be limited to only certain floors and elevations of the building.

By protecting only those windows that were really at risk, the client avoided unnecessary investment and was assured a cost-effective use of the available security budget.

{tab  Case 2}

The security officer responsible for a State Government building decided to install bollards on the road surrounding the building and commissioned our experts to plan their positioning. As soon as the study started, it was upgraded to a full Threat and Risk Analysis project since M.I.P. Security personnel immediately identified some serious vulnerabilities to the building.

As a result of this study, it was found that installing bollards would provide no benefit to the protection of the building due to the current positioning of the perimeter walls and roads. It was determined however, that the ease with which a vehicle could enter the building’s car park and park next to one of the pillars which made up the core of the building represented a critical vulnerability. The building was at risk of collapse if an adversary were to carry out an attack at this location. By upgrading the access control to the car park and preventing vehicles from parking near this pillar, the protection of the building was significantly increased.

It addition, the analysis discovered that written procedures were in place which dictated that if the V.I.P.’s were in any danger, they should be evacuated from the building. The Threat & Risk analysis demonstrated however, that once other recommended protection steps had been taken, the safest location for the V.I.P.’s in almost all threat scenarios was to remain on the upper floors in their offices rather than exit the building. The procedures were amended accordingly and now the V.I.P.’s are safer as a result of the work undertaken by M.I.P. Security experts.

{/tabs}