Is there a consensus on a section number for window stools? I need to include a solid-surface window stool and can’t seem to figure out the section to put this.
I would typically include these in a section w/ similar elements, such as a Div 06 architectural casework section – particularly if solid-surface countertops are spec’d there – or in a Div 12 countertop section. In the absence of related work, you could use 06 6116 “Solid Surfacing Fabrications” or create a narrower scope section such as 06 6117 or 06 6116.13 “Solid Surfacing Window Stools.”
There is a Division 09 section for stone window stools (along with interior stone wall facing and trim). I wold argue that a similar set of sections should be developed for synthetic stone “stuff.”
Plastic laminate window stools are more like plastic laminate countertops and probably furnished by the same fabricator.
A great example of Masterspecs apparent lack of foresight. Why oh why are the division 12 sections called countertops instead of fabrications? And really?..“simulated stone” …it’s as if nobody thought “maybe solid surface and quartz might not always look like fake stone”. Off of my soapbox now.
Those originate w/ MasterFormat, which MasterSpec follows fairly closely. The system isn’t perfect, but it is flexible enough so specifiers can make logical associations. Countertops are in Div 12 because of the association w/ casework. MasterFormat also lists counters as a subject in Div 06 woodwork/casework sections, which is where I typically specify them. Similar fabrications can also be readily integrated into Div 06. I generally specify counters in Div 12 only if the project does not include custom-fabricated casework, such as in the case of lav counter assemblies without cabinets.
I agree “simulated stone” isn’t quite accurate. “Composite Material Countertops” might be a more suitable and broader term.
I’d place here (right out of MF):
06 61 16 - Solid Surfacing Fabrications
Brian,
Because you have contributed quite a few insightful posts and inquiries on 4specs, your comment above seems a bit edgy.
MasterFormat amounts to an evolving consensus standard produced by a committee of volunteers who put in more hours than anyone would believe.
MASTERSPEC (all caps) is an evolving set of guide specification tools developed by Arcom and vetted several times each year by well-regarded design professionals from around the United States who volunteer many hours to them as well.
Because they evolve, they are at no point in time perfect. But the insight and foresight of many people has made them great resources for us.
It was entirely edgy and I apologize that it could easily be taken as disrespectful to those that put in the effort to make it what it is. I meant no disrespect. I do get frustrated at the effort it takes to maintain our office standards in light of the numerous reorganization, section splits, renaming efforts, etc that I have been dealing with recently. Between my efforts on e-specs and our BIM templates, each change causes many hours of coordination. Our keynotes and component names are based on the section number and when the change occurs mid project, it creates a difference between my spec section numbering and the content within the project files that if missed causes additional CA effort. I will try to be less edgy in future posts. 
David, a nitpick: MasterSpec no longer uses all caps, they use “camel case.”
I often tell my clients, “There are no MasterFormat Police.”
Do what makes sense.