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).
The reality of the language is such that both forms are used, on both sides of the Atlantic, but the bare-infinitive form is clearly preferred, as the stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC) illustrate:
COCA BNC
all you have to do is [inf] 842 72
all you have to do is to [inf] 17 20
The preference does not change if all is replaced with what, if an adverb is introduced before the infinitive, or if a different pronoun is used instead of you. However, what also does not change is that the variant with to at least exists. (A peculiar exception seem to be she and it; negation is another interesting case, but the sample size is sadly too small for those). Sometimes the ratio is a mere 1:60, but other times it's not anywhere as cut and dry. Here are all the stats I have compiled so far:
COCA BNC
all you/we/they/I have to do is [inf] 842/206/68/62 72/27/9/8
all you/we/they/I have to do is to [inf] 17/ 3/ 3/ 5 20/11/4/2
all he/she/it has to do is [inf] 105/40/11 5/3/1
all he/she/it has to do is to [inf] 6/ 0/ 0 2/1/0
all you/we have to do is [adv] [inf] 9/5
all you/we have to do is to [adv] [inf] 0/0
all you/we/they/I have to do is not [inf] 1/1/1/1
all you/we/they/I have to do is not to [inf] 0/0/0/0
what you have to do is [inf] 59 8
what you have to do is to [inf] 11 4
what you have to do is [adv] [inf] 8 1
what you have to do is to [adv] [inf] 1 0
So if you want to be on the safe side, bare infinitive certainly is the way to go. It also happens to be the more logical choice, as demonstrated by FumbleFingers in his answer. But we can't label the other option ungrammatical, and its existence can be explained logically as well, as metanalysis.
Best Answer
The problem is with the verb not the noun. So, while you can be a good person or a good leader, you cannot be a good leadership. Similarly, you can be a good friend but not be a good friendship. The sentence can be rewritten as:
or