Dear Yianna,
I guess this attach. is same as first one which I saw already. I thought you said in yr last post that you were going to attach some of yr results ?? Never mind 
, since you are apparently short of time I offer a few basic / immediate opinions –
Assuming yr chosen process is something like the example of Mansour, –
1. Mansoors style of layout is reasonable IMO (can be validated elsewhere) although the full risk analysis is not given as may be required by some reviewers.
2. Prerequisites and SOPs must be in place, typically (almost universally) around 6-9 items, eg controlled water supplies, pest prevention etc. My guess is you know these already ? If not I can give you a IT link.
3.Mansoors process includes a cooking step which represents the focus of the process microbiologically speaking. Prior steps involving microbiological items which will be removed by this step can be ignored as possible ccps (although their intended presence/removal must be stated). Steps after the cooking step which offer the possibility of re-contamination due micro contamination (eg by staph.aureus) will probably be ccps, eg cooling, handling. This is a sort of general rule if you compare other published refs. (validations). If you want I can give you another IT link.
4. the justification / control of the time/temp conditions for the cooking step will be very important. This is up to your conclusion for the micro. risks (ie your evaluation of the actual situation, different countries vary ,for example many European countries select core temp of 70degC/2mins as standard (based on L.mono destruction) for many typical products / processes but other equivalent time/temp pairs are equally acceptable if validatable. If you hv some other specific micro.risk may perhaps require more strict conditions.
5.Steps before the cooking involving occurrence / removal of physical contamination, (eg routine severe mixing with stones), IMO, should be controlled by a prerequisite step but could (validatable by decision tree) be a ccp if you prefer to evaluate like that (optional IMO); any similar specific added steps after cooking for removal of phys.contam. will definitely be ccps although such step is normally done before cooking IMEX of other products so as to minimise post-cooking handling..
5.Chemical contamination may hv to be given as a ccp if process controllable (typically not) or set up as a prerequisite (eg guaranteed controlled supply of raw material) (or perhaps as a ccp for raw material, optional approach)
These are only very quick ideas. Suggest you post more details if you hv specific questions based on yr intended presentation.
Rgds / Charles.C
added - as requested in yr assignment, one of the important parts in yr reviewed presentation will probably be the validation of technical control step data. Unfortunately, this was generally not given in Mansour's post. Basically you need a reference demonstrating the effectiveness of whatever numbers you choose for yr control step parameters (in addition to citing Mansour's document ). One layout style is to make a separate validation section at the end of the haccp plan and list the various ccps again with attachment of a link to a suitable reference for each one.
