The PIQ and the HVPQ are the two operator-maintained questionnaires the SIRE 2.0 compiler reads when it builds your vessel's CVIQ. Accurate data produces a question set that matches the ship. Stale data produces questions that do not fit, and declared claims the inspector will test on board.
What are the PIQ and the HVPQ?
Two questionnaires with different clocks. The Harmonised Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (HVPQ) documents what OCIMF calls permanent and infrequently changing information about the vessel: its construction, outfitting and certification. The Pre-Inspection Questionnaire (PIQ) is an online questionnaire the operator completes ahead of an inspection, covering the recent and the operational.
| HVPQ | PIQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Covers | Construction, outfitting, certification | Recent operational history and oversight |
| Changes | Rarely; on modification or recertification | Between every inspection |
| Examples | Cargo system configuration, certificate details | Class surveyor visits, incident history, audits, manning, additional officer training |
| Maintained by | Vessel operator | Vessel operator |
The PIQ's scope is broader than most crews assume. OCIMF's own operator briefing lists, among other items, the reason and date of the last class surveyor visit, reporting of onboard equipment changes, additional training provided to officers, under-keel clearance policy and vessel values, common working and SMS languages, lube oil analysis data, incident history for selected events, manning data, and the level of management oversight of the vessel, down to superintendent inspections and navigation, cargo, mooring and engineering audits. In other words: the PIQ is your company describing how it runs this ship, in writing, before anyone boards.
Alongside the questionnaires, the operator uploads certificates and a set of standard photographs; a photograph template must be created before a vessel can even be registered for SIRE 2.0 inspections. What those photosets require is its own subject, covered in SIRE 2.0 photo evidence requirements.
How does this data decide which questions your ship faces?
The compiler reads it directly. When an inspection is booked and the operator completes the Pre-Inspection Declaration, compiler software assembles the CVIQ from the SIRE question library using vessel type, HVPQ data, PIQ data and the booking entry itself. Core questions appear for every relevant inspection, rotational questions appear unpredictably, and conditional questions are included only when a data input triggers them.
OCIMF gives two concrete examples from the booking side. The cargo type entered with the inspection request triggers the selection of certain CVIQ questions, so it should not be left blank. And if ship-to-ship operations are expected during the inspection but not selected in the booking, STS questions will simply not be included in the CVIQ, which means an inspector watching an STS transfer is working outside the question set built for the visit.
The same logic runs through the questionnaires: declare a piece of equipment in the HVPQ and the questions that belong to it become eligible; describe an oversight regime in the PIQ and questions exist to validate it. The full mechanics of how the question set is assembled are in the CVIQ explained, and the categories it draws from are broken down in core, rotational, campaign and conditional question types.
What happens when the data is wrong or stale?
The inspection stops matching the ship. That shows up in three ways.
First, mismatched questions. The CVIQ is compiled from what the data says the vessel is, so an HVPQ describing equipment that was replaced two years ago, or a booking with the wrong cargo type, produces questions about a ship that no longer exists and omits questions about the one the inspector is standing on.
Second, tested claims. The inspector reviews the operator's data before boarding and selectively verifies PIQ entries on board. A declared engineering audit regime invites the obvious request: show me the last one. A claim your ship cannot evidence is worse than a modest entry, because the gap between paper and vessel is precisely what a vetting inspection exists to find. SIRE 2.0 even includes questions that validate TMSA-based information entered in the PIQ, so parts of your self-assessment are checked against observed practice on board.
Third, visible doubt. Where the inspector could not validate PIQ data, the report presents it as unvalidated. Nothing dramatic happens; the report simply tells every charterer who reads it that a statement the operator made about its own oversight could not be confirmed.
There is also a quieter cost. The human-element questions your crew rehearses are drawn from the same compiled set, so preparation built on stale data rehearses the wrong inspection. That interaction is covered in how inspectors assess the crew.
Who is responsible for keeping it current?
The vessel operator, formally: OCIMF assigns both questionnaires to the operator, and it is the operator's declaration that releases the CVIQ for compilation. In practice the work splits. The HVPQ is office-owned, usually by the technical or marine department, because construction and certification data lives ashore. The PIQ cannot be completed honestly from ashore alone: recent audits, manning, incident history and equipment changes need input from the vessel and from whoever manages it day to day.
The failure mode is the seam between the two. The ship replaces equipment and tells the superintendent; nobody amends the HVPQ. A certificate is renewed and filed; the HVPQ entry keeps the old details. OCIMF's guidance on sequence exists for exactly this reason: update the HVPQ first, then the certificate details, so the two never disagree. Naming one accountable owner ashore, with a named counterpart on board, matters more than which department they sit in.
How often should PIQ and HVPQ data be reviewed?
OCIMF publishes no fixed review interval, so anchor the reviews to events rather than a calendar. Four triggers cover nearly everything:
- Every inspection booking. The Pre-Inspection Declaration is a formal confirmation of the data; treat it as a review deadline, not a checkbox.
- Every certificate renewal or class survey, updating the HVPQ before the certificate details.
- Every equipment change or modification, however small it seems from ashore.
- Every incident or audit in scope of the PIQ, logged when it happens rather than reconstructed months later.
A tanker trading under regular vetting faces inspections frequently enough that the PIQ is effectively a living document. Between the event-driven updates, a periodic office read-through of both questionnaires against reality catches the drift that no single event explains.
What does a data-review routine look like in practice?
Work backwards from the booking. When an inspection request goes in, the routine runs in one pass:
- Booking entry checked against the actual call: cargo type entered, STS operations selected if expected.
- HVPQ read against the vessel, with the ship confirming equipment and outfitting entries rather than the office assuming them.
- Certificates updated in sequence, HVPQ first.
- PIQ completed with fresh input from vessel and superintendent: dates of visits and audits pulled from records, not memory.
- Standard photographs reviewed against current condition and re-shot where the ship has changed.
- Pre-Inspection Declaration completed only when the five steps above are done, because that is the moment the data becomes the inspection.
The routine is dull, which is the point: every step is a lookup if the underlying records exist, and an investigation if they do not. Operators who keep a structured record of walk-throughs, audits and photographs fill the PIQ in an afternoon. Operators who keep them in inboxes and chat threads rebuild the vessel's recent history every time. Where this routine sits in the wider run-up to inspection day, including what the crew does with the compiled question set, is laid out in the SIRE 2.0 preparation checklist.
The honest limit: accurate data does not make questions easier, and it will not spare a vessel an observation it deserves. What it removes is the avoidable kind, the observation that exists because the paperwork described a different ship.