SQF Internal Audit Responsibility

I've received my first consultant position and my first duty is to perform an internal audit of a company's SQF program (modules 2 and 11). I'm looking for some guidance on how far an internal audit of these modules goes. I'm on my first week of consulting. Here are some of my questions:

Example #1: Clause 2.4.3.6 outlines requirements for documentation of the flow diagrams, and notes "each flow diagram shall be confirmed by the food safety team to cover all stages and hours of operation"

Question #1: Does the internal audit simply confirm the presence of the flow diagrams and whether a flow-diagram verification has been performed? Where does the IA stop? 

Example #2: Clause 2.4.5.2 notes "Quarantine records and records of the handling, corrective action, or disposal of nonconforming materials or product shall be maintained."

Question #2: All the documentation has been created to comply with this item#. Does my audit stop at whether these records are being maintained vs maintained properly? The Hold Tags are not being filled out properly or being signed off as noted on the document and there is no HOLDs Log. Suggestions on how far to go appreciated!!!

Overall I'm just looking for some guidance regarding the depth and responsibility a person conducting an IA is required to go. 

Thanks!

I'm not an SQF auditor but how much in depth internal audits go I think is a question beyond SQF and opinion and practice varies.  I always hold with the approach that more in depth is LOADS better for internal audits before some external auditor picks you apart.

So personally to comply with that clause, I'd be looking for evidence on their records or in their meeting minutes that they'd not just verified the flow diagram and that all of them took part in that but they also did so at different times of the day / different production scheduling and actively chose those times to try and find something different.  So not that they did it once, ticked it off and said "job done, never looking at that again!"

Did the customer give you any indication on desired level of detail?

If I hired a consultant, I would absolutely want them to list ANY possible thing an auditor could hit me on. Along with WHY the auditor could hit me (intent of code vs. actual code violation, etc.) I also would not be opposed to them listing areas of improvement they discover that doesn't fall under either code or intent violation, but might be something an actual auditor see's and thinks "hrmm, that's something I see go along with a lot of NC's, I'm going to dig further.." 

If I have a consultant in, I have them in to get me TOP NOTCH, not just barely passable. However, not all owners or FSQ program directors feel that way (I've worked with some).

I'm with TimG. I hired a consultant when we started the SQF process (previously just GMP through AIB). I only had a few NCs at the time, but tons of things to look at and improve upon. If he had not taken a deep dive into everything, the process would have been much more difficult. The purpose of hiring a consultant is not to make someone feel good about the situation at hand, but to help them see things that have been missed and to improve.

Hi NorCalNate,

For Question 1, When auditing against clause 2.4.3.6, it is not sufficient to check that flow diagrams exist, you need to check that flow diagrams include every step in the process, all raw materials, packaging, service inputs (e.g., water, steam, gasses as applicable), scheduled process delays, and all process outputs including waste and rework. As internal auditing tends to be a snapshot I would check at least one flow diagram and note that is is good practice to work through the rest on subsequent audits so that they are all covered over a period of time.

For Question 2, Clause 2.4.5.2, that needs to be raised as a non-conformance.

Note, whilst checking compliance with SQF during Internal Audits, you also need to be checking that the clients procedures are being followed.

Kind regards,

Tony