Both sentences are grammatically correct, and as such the edit was unnecessary. However, adding a comma after need in the second sentence would also be unnecessary, though not strictly incorrect.
Both sentences are using a non-finite verb form to indicate intent. In English, you can usually use either a gerund (as in the first example) or an infinitive (as in the second example), with little or no difference in meaning. When there is a difference, the gerund version tends to indicate a general need, while the infinitive indicates a specific, immediate need:
- I want more sugar for making frosting. (Making frosting is something I do regularly, and I need more sugar to keep it up.)
- I want more sugar to make frosting. (I'm making frosting right now, and I need more sugar.)
Assuming that you meant something like #1, changing it to #2 is potentially a subtle change in meaning.
However, this distinction is not consistent, and depends heavily on context.
Yes, that's past perfect. Perhaps the problem is just that you don't want past perfect tense. The simple past will inform the reader of the same facts:
On January 17th, our team represented [organization name] at [place].
You might favour the past perfect here if you were then going on to describe how that effected another event in the past, later than that one:
On January 17th, our team had represented [organization name] at [place], so we were already well-known there when we went in March.
You don't have to use it in this case, since the date makes the relationship between them clear. Consider without the date. The first two give exactly the same information:
Our team represented [organization name] at [place].
Our team had represented [organization name] at [place].
The second leads me to thinking "and then what", but that's no bad thing if you're going to tell me "and then what" later on. When we do bring up a later event, this jars:
Our team represented [organization name] at [place], so we were already well-known there when we went in March.
(In reading that, I tend to respond with "wait? what? when? are we talking about the same time here or what?").
This flows:
Our team had represented [organization name] at [place], so we were already well-known there when we went in March.
Okay, one event in the past followed by another event in the past. Perfectly understandable.
As a side note, does it matter if it's British or American English?
I've heard it said that American English is more tolerant than British English of using the past perfect with a stated date or time (as you have done). I'm not convinced that this regional difference exists. I'd read it as valid, but unnecessary. (Though my English is neither American nor British, of the two it would be closer to British on most things).
Best Answer
To me,
having not givensmells a bit liketo not care, a split infinitive. Not having had much experience in this area, though, I'm interested to hear what other people think.